HF 


FT MEPDE 
GenCol1 



]LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.: 

\ l 

I UNITED STATES OE AMERICA.^ 













i 


V-/ 


vl 


i 






* / 







i 




. 0 ■ 


0 


* 


w' 




\ 

) 






4 



, « 

t 


‘l- 


t 







i 


•« 



■ # 



»' I. 


► 


i ' 



» • 


» 


k' 




» 



'.. > 

4#i •• 






« 


• f 



2j A^Oir # 



. r 



• » 






STATEMENTS 


MADE BKFORE THE 





ON THE 


SUGAR QUESTION 

IN THE 


INTERESTS OF AMERICAN CONSUMERS, HOME IN 
DUSTRIES, AND REVENUE. 

0 

By henry a. brown, 

Ex Special Ti*eaRiii‘y A^eiit, IT. S. 

January 29-30, 1880. 


WASHINGTON, D. C. 
PRINTED BY JUDD & DETWEILER. 
1880. 




















V 



H 5 I 

.Sg rss7 

2 - 


X 

\ 


% 


\ 


« 




»« 




\ 





\ 


4 • ^ 

« ^ 










J 


s 




I 


STATEMENTS AND ILLUSTEATIONS 

RELATING TO THE 

Sugar Question amcl Tariff; before the Committee of 
Ways and Means. 

By HENRY A. BROWN, 

Ex-Special Treasury Agent U. S. 


Washington, January 29, 1880. 

The clerk handed to the chairman a letter written to Mr. Henry 
A. Brown, informing him that he would be heard by the committee 
this morning. 

Mr. Bunnell. Have we not before us in print a statement of Mr. 
Brown ? 

Mr. Brown. The committee has before it an old pamphlet written 
by me instead of a recent one published by me. I will hand to the 
committee* copies of the other one. Some person has very shrewdly 
thought proper to place this one before the committee. 

Mr. Bunnell. Both hooks are yours, are they ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Gibson. Are you in the sugar business ? 

Mr. Brown. I am not dealing in sugar. I am an investigator of 
customs business management, and particularly of those questions 
relating to sugar. 

Mr. Gibson. Under the authority of the Treasury Bepartment ? 

Mr. Brown. I was at one time special agent of that Bepartment, 
but at present I am not acting officially. 

Mr. Gibson. Have you any personal connection with the Treasury 
Bepartment ? 

Mr. Brown. I have not. 

Mr. Gibson. Have you any connection wdth the sugar interest 
except as one of the consumers ? 

Mr. Brown. Not, except as one of the consumers, and as an investi¬ 
gator of the question, with unusual facilities for that purpose. 

Mr. Gibson moved that Mr. Brown be allowed half an hour. 

Mr. Mills moved to amend by giving him one hour. 

After the discussion, both the original motion and the amend¬ 
ment were withdrawn, and Mr. Brown proceeded to address the 
committee, reading the following paper : 

However much this honorable committee. Congress, and the people 
may have been saturated with solutions of the sugar question, care¬ 
ful analysis of such solutions reveal the fact that individual trade 
interests, too shrewdly put or awkardly presented, and official mis¬ 
representations have strangely subverted facts; judging from the 
facts in my knowledge, such presentations have unwisely ignored 



I 


the interests of consumers, and misled Congress in its measurement 
of this stupendous question. 

The entire consumption of foreign and domestic raw sugar in this 
country now exceeds 1,900,000,000 pounds per annum, or about 38 
pounds per capita ; of which in the fiscal year ending with June, 1879, 
1,681,307,412 pounds were foreign sugars, to wit, 1,598,461,986 
pounds dry dutiable sugar; 41,152^,357 pounds melada or wet sugar,^ 
and 41,693,069 pounds free sugar from Hawaii; this vast volume of 
raw sugar comprises more than one-seventh of the ofilcially reported 
and estimated annual raw sugar product of the world, which in 
1878 was 5,335,000 tons, and in 1879 approximated 5,500,000 tons, or 
12,320,000,000 pounds; although we number less than one-thirtieth 
of the population of the world, we consume more than one-seventh 
of its sugar product. England alone exceeds us in this regard, 
annually consuming about 62 pounds per capita, or more than 
2,100,000,000 pounds; about one-sixth of the world’s raw sugar 
product. 

Dutiable sugar and melada constituted 24.03 per cent, of all 
dutiable merchandise entered into consumption in the fiscal years 
1876,-’77-’78, and yielded 27.93 per cent, of the duty received in 
those years, while dutiable dry and wet sugars and molasses con¬ 
stituted 26.52 per cent, of all dutiable merchandise entered into 
consumption in the years named, and yielded an average of no less 
than 29.41 per cent, of the total revenue from customs; the yield 
being in 1870 30.61 per cent., had the full duty on the higher grades 
of dry sugars being collected during 1876-’77-’78, the revenue, 
under the present tarifiT from sugar, melada and molasses would 
have exceeded 35 per cent of the entire revenue from customs in 
those years. 

In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1879, the total value of dutia¬ 
ble merchandise entered into consumption was $296,742,215; total 
value of sugar and melada $67,153,667, or 22.63 per cent, of all 
dutiable merchandise. The total amount of duty received in the 
same year was $133,159,025, of which $38,065,803, or 28.58 per 
cent, was received from sugar and melada; if molasses be added, 
the per cent, of duty received from sugar and molasses in 1879 is 
30.24. 

I am satisfied that had there been no foreign centrifugal machines 
in motion to increase frauds, with reasonable official diligence, at 
least 37 per cent, of the customs revenue would have been derived 
from sugars and molasses; that is, we should have received $50,- 
000,000 in the fiscal year 1879 from sugar and molasses, instead of 
$40,275,402. 

Uniform duty on sugar up to l^o. 13 would legalize and perpetuate 
this system of enormous swindles, while the consequent exclusion 
of low grades would further outrage consumers and tax-payers. 
For instance: 

We buy foreign raw sugars testing, say, 80 in the producing 
country, at, say, 3 cents a pound; 100 pounds cost $3; there being 
only 80 pounds of crystallizable sugar, the cost would be 3f cents 
a pound; from such sugar, an outturn of all grades of refined sugar 


s 

% 

can be produced for consumers at correspondingly low rates, while 
the cost of labor and materials employed in refining such sugar is 
disbursed in this country. On the other hand, we buy centrifugals 
in Cuba or Demerara testing say, 97, at, say, 6 cents a pound; 100 
pounds cost $6; the 97 pounds of crystallizable sugar therein would 
cost 6.2 cents a pound; from this sugar, refiners can only obtain 
the highest proportionate outturn of refined product in pure sugar, 
&c. In order to supply the mass of consumers, when centrifugals 
alone, or even with a small per cent, of lower grades, are used for 
refining, the outturn must be stretched with glucose, starch, &c.; 
otherwise, consumers must buy the highest priced refined sugars 
or none. 

The difference between $3.75 for 100 pounds of raw sugar of low- 
grade and $6.20 for 100 pounds centrifugals, represents what under 
a uniform tariff' to ISTo. 13 would be the increased cost of sugar to 
consumers and the industrial loss to this country, namely, $2.45 for 
each 100 pounds of raw sugar imported for consumption; besides, 
our own refiners can produce centrifugals of equal grade from low- 
grade sugars for far less money; neither would the government 
gain a single cent of revenue under a uniform duty to No. 13 over 
that obtained under the present classification tariff; on the con¬ 
trary, we should simply be admitting centrifugals at the lowest rate 
of duty, to the exclusion, or nearly so, of all lower grades; by 
which process we reduce importations, because we do not require 
so many pounds of centrifugals as we do of lower grades of raw 
sugar to supply consumers with the grades of refined sugars they 
demand: hence importations would be curtailed under a uniform 
duty to No. 13. 

Sugars for refining, when honestly entered, are not above No. 13; 
therefore the utmost possible evasion of duty through false sampling 
such sugars under the present tariff would be the difference between 
2y^g- cents a pound and 2 J|- cents a pound, or 62J cents per 100 pounds, 
whereas should the weigher trifle with the scales so as to make a 
shortage of one pound in every hundred, the government must lose 
$2.33, the average duty collected in 1879 per 100 pounds; the 
weigher under a uniform tariff to No. 13 could defraud more than 
the sampler could under the present tariff', while the profit to the 
importer would also be greater in proportion. 

The inducement to evade duty on low grades of imported sugars 
is of necessity confined to weighing, it being next to impossible to 
hide or lower their intrinsic color either to advantage or profit; 
whereas the inducements to evade duty on high grades of raw sugar 
are very great, when sugar of No. 13 or 16 Dutch standard, actual 
foreign value, is entered as No. 7 Dutch standard in color, which 
has repeatedly been done with centrifugal sugars, an illicit gain of 
$6,250 accrues to revenue evasionists on a cargo of 1,000,000 
pounds. No. 7 Dutch standard apparent in color has stood for No. 
10, No. 13, and even No. 16 Dutch standard, actual in cost, in the 
principal transactions of the past few years in the entry of dutiable 
sugars of high foreign value, falsely toned in color to evade duty; 
to burden low-grade raw sugars, which never evade duty, with a 


4 


high-grade tax or uniform duty to i^o. 13 Dutch standard, in order 
to legalize the present illicit practice of entering high grade centri¬ 
fugals at low-grade rates of duty would outrage consumers. 

The average foreign cost of raw sugar per pound and the average 
duty received per pound was, in 1876: cost 4.08 cents, duty 2.41 
cents; in 1877, cost 4.93 cents, duty 2.36 cents; in 1878, cost 6.08 
cents, duty 2.34; in 1879, cost 4.12 cents, duty 2.33 cents ; showing 
a constantly decreasing rate of duty with increasing imports of high 
grades of centrifugal sugars. 

Apparently all raw sugars imported were of an average grade of 
iTo. 7J Dutch standard, which is, of course, simply humbug; the 
average cost of I7o. 7J Dutch Standard raw sugar in producing 
countries was about 2J cents a pound for the fiscal year ending June 
30, 1879; neither did the government retain 2.33 cents a pound 
duty in 1879. Melada, or wet sugar, is used for refining purposes, 
and, with free sugars from Hawaii, must be added to dutiable dry 
sugars; therefore, the total amount of dry and wet sugars entered into 
consumption in 1879 was 1,681,307,412 pounds, value $70,266,105; 
duty received from sugars and melada, $38,065,803, less $3,365,297, 
refunded on drawback on 116,862,583 pounds refined sugar exported 
in 1879; net duty received, $34,700,506, or 2.06 cents per pound. 

Instead of bettering this condition, a uniform duty to Ho. 13 
would simply enable refiners to export more refined sugars of high 
grade, made from high-grade centrifugals entered below Ho. 13 at 
the lowest rate of duty, and obtain 3.18 cents per pound therefor in 
drawback; while fifty millions of American consumers are to be 
deprived of low-grade sugars or the outturn therefrom to suit such 
speculations. 

The classification of imported sugars for duty tell the true story of 
gigantic frauds upon the revenue; for instance, in 1878 sugars 
sampled and classed as not above Ho. 7 Dutch standard actually 
cost 4.82 cents a pound in the producing country, or the average 
foreign cost of sugar above Ho. 10 Dutch standard in intrinsic 
color. 

Sugars sampled and classed as above 7, not above 10, Dutch stand¬ 
ard in color cost 5.37 cents a pound in producing countries, or the 
average foreign cost of sugars above Ho. 13 Dutch standard in in¬ 
trinsic color; sugars sampled and classed as above 10, not above 13, 
Dutch standard, cost 5.68 cents a pound in producing countries, or 
the average foreign cost of sugars above Ho. 13 Dutch standard in 
intrinsic color; while sugars sampled and classed as above 13, not 
above 16, Dutch standard in color cost only 5.01 cents per pound in 
producing countries. 

Will anybody having knowledge or common sense pretend that 
raw sugar Ho. 7 and below in natural color actually cost on the aver¬ 
age 4.82 cents per pound in producing countries during 1878, or 
that 7 to 10 sugars cost 5.37 cents, or that 10 to 13 sugars cost 5.68 
cents per pound, while sugars above 13, not above 16, Dutch stand¬ 
ard cost only 5 cents per pound in producing countries ? The classi¬ 
fications below Ho. 16 are plainly false and fraudulent. 

In 1879 the apparent ad valorem rate of duty received was, on 


5 


sugar not above No. 7, 63.2 per cent.; on sugar above 7, not above 
10, 60.8 per cent.; above 10, not above 13, 60.65 per cent.; above 
13, not above 16, 64.41 per cent.; but the actual ad valorem rate 
received is another matter, inasmuch as the classifications for duty 
are largely crooked; for instance, 890,801,182 pounds of sugar are 
classed not above No. 7, and valued at $36,627,476; a little more 
than 4 cents per pound in the country of production; whereas the 
average cost of such sugars in 1879 in producing countries was about 
2f cents per pound; about 20 per cent, of sugars not above No. 7 
of natural color are imported, on the average, according to facts; 
therefore only 319,692,396 pounds of sugars not above No. 7 entered 
into consumption in 1879, amounting, at 2J cents per pound, to 
$8,791,540; the duty thereon at 2:^^ cents per pound would be 
$6,993,271, or 79.54 per cent, ad valorem, as compared with 63.41, 
the true ad valorem rate on the same grades in 1878, falsely repre¬ 
sented for duty purposes, as 45.33 per cent. Even should it be 
claimed that the average cost of No. 7 and below sugars has been 3 
cents per pound in 1879 in producing countries, which is not the 
fact, the ad valorem rate for No. 7 and below sugars in 1879 would 
still be 72.91 per cent, instead of 53.2 per cent. The pretense that 
the present tariff favors low grades is a miserable subterfuge, to de¬ 
prive consumers of their rights and to legalize the present system of 
frauds by a uniform sugar tariff* to No. 13. 

Hawaiian sugars enter duty free, and of course, there being no 
profit or advantage in false entries and no duties to evade, the classi¬ 
fication of free sugars tells the-true story of grades to wit : 

Hawaiian sugars entered into consumption in 1879 were as follows: 



Quantity. 

Value. 

Cost per lb. 

Not above No. 7 (p. 10, H. C.), none... 
Above 7, not above 10. 

Pounds. 

8,174,146 

16,615,686 

15,670,564 

1,232,673 

Dollars. 

501,850 

1,099,164 

1,118,117 

92,061 

Cents. 

6.13 

Above 10, not above 13. 

6.61 

Above 13, not above 16. 

7.13 

Above 16, not above 20... 

7.46 



Here we have not only an honest classification of sugars, but an 
illustration of the beauties of a uniform tariff* to No. 13 on dutiable 
sugars, encouraging foreign industries and crushing our own, thus 
compelling American consumers to pay the taxes imposed on foreign 
sugar at every turn, while depriving them of the cheaper grades of 
refined sugars, which can only be manufactured in this country in 
sufficient quantities to meet consumers’ demands, by admitting all 
grades of raw sugars at equitable rates of duty, conforming to their in¬ 
trinsic color and value, under a classification tariff*. It should be 
remarked and remembered that Hawaii no longer sends us raw sugars 
No. 7 and below, because having no duty to hinder, she raises the 
grade of her sugars for this market, retains the industry, and com¬ 
pels the American consumers to pay her the full American market 
value of the sugar when landed in California. Thus consumers, who 
are tax-payers, lose the duty and pay for the foreign industry of 












5 


semi-refining, yet cannot obtain the low grades of raw material re¬ 
quired for refining purposes from these Hawaiians, who fatten on 
our credulity. 

Our trade with Hawaii under the reciprocity treaty from Septem¬ 
ber 1, 1876, to June 30, 1878, and loss of duty on Hawaiian sugars, 
estimated at 62.50 per cent, of their value, was as follows : 


Imports, consumed_§4,799,508 

Exports_ 3,080,632 

Sugar imports_ 4,382,900 

Loss sugar duty_ 2,739,313 

In 1879, fiscal year, the account with Hawaii stands as follows, 
including loss of duty on sugar : 

Imports, consumed_§3,112,438 

Exports_ 2,288,178 

Sugar imports_ 2,811,192 

Loss sugar duty_ 1,756,995 


Worse than this, the introduction of sugar duty free from Hawaii 
opens a channel for defrauding the revenue by landing sugars at 
those islands and shipping them thence to the United States to enter 
duty free as Hawaiian sugars. 

A uniform duty on sugars to i7o. 13 Dutch Standard would vir¬ 
tually accomplish similar results to these Hawaiian frolics in trans¬ 
ferring American industries to foreign hands and shutting out low- 
grade sugars, while the almost exclusive importation of high-grade 
centrifugals, clayed, and semi-refined sugars would enormously cur¬ 
tail the number of pounds of foreign raw-sugar material required 
for consumption, and reduce the revenue accordingly; not only this, 
but the application of this Hawaiian, centrifugal, clayed, semi-re¬ 
fined, uniform duty principle to the entire volume of foreign sugars 
now required for consumption would entail an industrial loss upon 
the people of this country amounting to fully 2J cents per pound 
on the consumption, or more than §40,000,000 annually, as already 
illustrated. 

Neither should the sugar productive industries of this country be 
curtailed or crushed or be made subservient to foreign and domestic 
speculations in American industries and the necessities and rights 
of American consumers, as proposed under a uniform tariff on raw 
sugars not above No. 13 Dutch Standard in color. It is a dangerous 
mistake for Louisiana to endeavor to shut out low grades and en¬ 
courage the importation of centrifugals and high grades of foreign 
raw sugar, by admitting foreign semi-refined sugars at the lowest 
rate of duty; and the beet sugar industry now struggling into life 
in this country would be strangled in its infancy under the existing 
system of thuggism in trade, which system would be legalized under 
a uniform tariff on all sugars not above No. 13 Dutch Standard in 
color. 

A cursory examination and comparison of Louisiana sugars with 
foreign low-grade sugars will show conclusively that Louisiana raw 
sugars have nothing to fear from foreign low grades of raw sugar 
under the present classification tariff*, as the existing duty on low- 
grade sugars, added to freight, charges, and commissions, more 










7 


than doubles their original cost in producing countries, thus en¬ 
abling Louisiana to obtain for her lowest grades of raw sugar prices 
which remunerate her producers in a princely manner, compared 
with the average returns from other agricultural pursuits in this 
country. Louisiana, therefore, need not fear foreign low-grade 
sugars. 

Louisiana as a cane sugar producing State has always demanded 
exorbitant protection for her sugars; the history of all well ordered 
nations teaches that tariff protection should be extended only to 
home products which can readily be produced in excess, and the 
surplus thereof sold abroad with advantage and profit to the pro¬ 
ducing country; if cane sugar cannot be produced in this country 
in sufficient quantity to supply home consumption within a reason¬ 
able time, it is folly and injustice to consumers to levy the present 
high duties on sugar for the protection of Louisiana, Florida, and 
Texas. 

The capacity of Louisiana for producing cane sugar has been 
fairly measured by past and present experience in that State; from 
a yield of 30,000,000 of pounds in the crop year 1835-’36, a fluctuat¬ 
ing progress in the annual production of cane sugar in Louisiana 
brought the yield in the crop year 1853-’54 up to 495,200,000 
pounds, after which it fell to 81,400,000 pounds in 1856-’57, rose to 
414,800,000 pounds in the crop year 1858-’59, fell to 225,100,000 
pounds in 1859-’60, rose to 263,300,000 pounds in 1860-’61, and 
under fortuitous circumstances, including favorable weather, in the 
crop year 1861-’62, Louisiana produced 528,300,000 pounds of cane 
sugar; this exceptional yield has not been approximated since in 
that State, notwithstanding improved machinery, agricultural ad¬ 
vancement, and exorbitant protection. 

From 1862-’63 to 1867-’68, inclusive, six crop years, the total 
yield from Louisiana sugar cane was 295,500,000 pounds of sugar; 
less than five per cent, of the consumption of sugar in the country 
in those years. If war was the sole cause of this falling ofl‘, how 
has Cuba managed to maintain an annual average in sugar crops 
under wars, devastations, and numerous calamities? The annual 
yield of cane sugar from 1835 to 1879 is presented elsewhere 
herein, where it will be seen that during the years 1868-’69 to 
1876-’77, inclusive, nine crop years, Louisiana produced only 
1,233,814,000 pounds of cane sugar; an average of 137,090,444 
pounds per annum, or an aggregate product of less than the aver¬ 
age annual consumption of imported sugars in this country, includ¬ 
ing Hawaiian sugars, during the same years; the total consumption 
of foreign sugar in this country being during 1869 to 1877, inclu¬ 
sive, 12,217,854,976 pounds, or an average of 1,357,539,442 pounds 
per annum. 

In other words, during the nine crop years above named, which cor¬ 
respond with our fiscal years, Louisiana has produced 1,233,814,000 
pounds of sugar, the value of which at 8 cents per pound is $98,705,120; 
while during fiscal years ending in 1877, 12,217,854,976 pounds of 
foreign sugar have been consumed in this country, and consumers 
have been taxed $288,260,765 of duty collected thereon; the Secre- 


8 


tary of the Treasury and Louisiana coolly urge the continuance of 
this exorbitant war tax on sugar for revenue, and to protect Louis¬ 
iana planters, who produce only a tenth part of our consumption of 
sugar, and that of a kind which now commands its own price and 
market without protection, as in case of maple sugar. 

Judging from results before and since the war, the annual reports 
of Louisiana planters, and the local disadvantages, such as early 
cold and frost, against which there is no remedy, consequent poor 
seed and difficulties of propagating the cane from cuttings and 
ratoons, the average annual yield is not likely to exceed 250,000,000 
pounds, until plantations in general are much better worked and 
properly manured, and more land has been planted wdth sugar¬ 
cane. 

There are, however, good reasons for the belief that, with these 
requirements fulfilled, the annual capacity of Louisiana for the pro¬ 
duction of cane sugar would be equal to 500,000,000 pounds, and 
that an average annual yield in Louisiana of fully 350,000,000 
pounds of cane sugar could then be relied on; and it is reasonable 
to suppose that under proper cultivation in Louisiana and such 
other States as are suited to the growth and maturing sugar cane, 
a large portion of the sugar required for our own consumption 
could be produced in this country without the aid of special tarifiT 
protection. 

In many parishes in Louisiana, sugar plantations readily produce 
more than a ton of sugar to the acre, besides molasses; in the crop 
year 1877-’78 there are reported products per acre from Louisiana 
sugar plantations as follows : 3,000 pounds, 2,860 pounds, 2,855 
pounds, 2,700 pounds, 2,634 pounds, 2,650 pounds, 2,500 pounds, 
2,460 pounds, 2,400 pounds, 2,320 pounds, 2,300 pounds, 2,250 
pounds, 2,240 pounds, and 33 plantations reported a yield of 2,200 
pounds and upward of sugar to the acre, besides molasses. M. 
Schlatre, an authority among Louisiana planters, has furnished de¬ 
tailed statements of the cost of producing cane sugar in Louisiana 
on the basis of 2,200 pounds of sugar per acre, which summarizes 


as follows for the crop year 1877-’78: 

Total cost of cane, planting, and cultivating 50 acres_$2,413 50 

Expenses to convert the cane into 100 hogsheads sugar.. 3,000 00 

Cost per acre when producing 2 hogsheads sugar_ 108 27 

Yield of 50 acres of cane in sugar and molasses; 100 hogs¬ 
heads sugar (1,100 pounds to the hogshead,) at 8 cents 

per pound-- 8,800 00 

150 hogsheads molasses, at $18 per hogshead_ 2,700 00 

Cistern bottoms_ 300 00 


Total value of product_ 11,800 00 

Total cost of production_ 5,413 50 


ISTet profit from 50 acres_ 6,386 50 

Cost per acre, $108.27; yield per acre, $236; net profit 

per acre_ 127 73 

The above estimated profit per acre is princely, when compared 












9 


with the average annual agricultural yield in net profit of less than 
$30 per cultivated acre; but it would he largely increased under a 
thorough system of cultivation, manuring, and manufacture, whereby 
more and better cane would be produced, and more juice be ab¬ 
stracted therefrom than is now the case. At least 3,000 pounds of 
sugar per acre should be obtained in good years; indeed it is con¬ 
ceded by Louisiana planters that the cultivation of sugar-cane in 
that State is profitable throughout under economical and experienced 
management, notwithstanding intervening poor crops caused by 
climatic drawbacks ; it is also a fact that Louisiana raw sugars com¬ 
mand their own market of consumption, at prices which compete 
only with refined sugars, and do not really come into competition 
with foreign raw sugars. 

Louisiana producers readily obtain an average price above 7 cents 
per pound for their sugars, which, although defecated or made bright 
in color by sulphur or muriate of tin, previously contain less crystal- 
lizable sugar than foreign refining muscovadoes and molasses sugars, 
while the foreign producers of these sugars obtain an average of 
about 2|- cents per pound only. Analyses of numerous cargoes of 
Louisiana sugars resulted as follows : lowest cargo test, crystals 
81.10; invert sugar, 8.41; water, 7.39; ash, 1.32; other impurities, 
1.78; highest cargo test, crystals, 90.30; invert sugar, 1.27; water, 
4.83; ash, 0.82; other impurities, 2.78; average cargo tests, crys¬ 
tals, 84.75; invert sugar, 5.70; water, 6.12; ash, 1.15; other im¬ 
purities, 2.28; average crystallizable strength, avoiding extremes, 
Louisiana sugars, 84.75; foreign muscovadoes, average 88.89, as 
shown hereinafter. In short, Louisiana needs no protection against 
foreign raw sugars until she produces raw sugars for refining pur¬ 
poses and not for immediate consumption, which she has no inten¬ 
tion of doing while her producers can sell raw sugars brightened in 
color for immediate consumption, at prices ranging from 7 to 11 
cents per pound, as in 1877-78-’79. 

Beet sugar can unquestionably be produced in the United States 
in vast quantities; there is abundant evidence that the sugar-beet 
can be grown at a good profit in many sections of this country, and 
be made to yield, under a proper cultivation, from 9 to 12 per cent, 
of its weight in crystallizable sugar and sirup; the pulp residuum 
remains highly nutritious for cattle, and the green beet tops are 
excellent for feeding to stock. 

From 20 to 25 tons of sugar-beets can be raised to the acre on 
ordinary farming-land with moderate manuring, at about the cost of 
raising potatoes ; where proper farming-tools are used for planting 
beet-seed and hoeing the plants, there is no crop of roots more 
easily cultivated than beets; the tap-root of the beet finds moisture 
enough and flourishes in sandy loam and moderately dry farming 
land; when suitable land produces less than 20 tons of sugar-beets 
to the acre, the fault or failure will be found, as in the case of 
sugar-cane, in the farming or want of manure; sugar-beet culture 
has great advantage over sugar-cane culture in this country, as the 
latter is subject to casualties of climate almost unknown to the 
former. 

2 


10 


Farmers in Maine are now (1879) paid $6 per ton of 2,240 pounds 
for unwashed sugar-beets delivered at the factory in Portland, or $5 
per ton delivered at railroad stations centering at Portland; the 
average yield in France is about 23 tons of beets to the acre, and 
from 11 to 14 per cent, of sugar and sirup therefrom, both of which 
outturns can be equaled or excelled in this country; when requisite 
experience in cultivating the sugar-beet has been acquired, we can 
produce two tons of beet sugar per acre, and, all things considered, 
farmers will be better paid from sugar-beet crops at $5 per ton 
unwashed, delivered at central stations, than from any other crops 
they generally handle. 

Continental Europe has set us an example in beet-sugar produc¬ 
tion, and presents a profitable and progressive record of energy 
and enterprise in this regard, producing, in 1878, 1,465,000 tons of 
beet sugar, with a prospective crop, in 1879, of at least 1,500,000 
tons; as beet sugar must be refined before it is suitable for con¬ 
sumption, the industry of refining in this country must be greatly 
benefited by the increased production of beet sugar; the beet sugar 
industry has taken shape in Maine, Massachusetts, Delaware, and 
California, and is in embryotic form elsewhere in this country; it 
already bids fair to become a source of national wealth; a moderate 
duty on foreign sugar will stimulate the production of cane and 
beet sugar in this country, hut the broad basis of dependmce with both 
of these industries is their capacity of production in competition with 
foreign producers on equal terms. 

On the contrary, when we come to the refinod outturn from im¬ 
ported sugars, Louisiana must of necessity compete therewith, and 
it is very evident that the higher the grades of imported raw sugars, 
the more difiicnlt it becomes for domestic sugars to compete with 
the outturn therefrom in quality and prices. Her remedy lies in 
refining her own sugars. Louisiana, therefore, sounds the tocsin of 
her own sugar productive undoing when she advocates a uniform 
duty on all sugars not above No. 18 in color. A uniform duty to 
No. 16 would be even worse for her; it is further evident that pro¬ 
tected by a uniform duty to No. 13, Cuba and other countries would 
soon flood us with muscovadoes of a grade suitable for immediate 
consumption, at prices with which Louisiana muscovadoes could not 
compete profitably in this market. 

The difficulties in the way of adopting an actual ad valorem sugar 
tariff with any certainty of collecting the full duty from sugar and 
other merchandise, are almost insurmountable, owing to fluctuations 
in prices and false invoicing, &c. 

The Dutch standard is perfectly competent to determine the in¬ 
trinsic colors of all raw sugars of natural color, when such sugars are 
reduced to the consistency of Dutch standard samples in grain ; as regards 
low grades of raw sugar, the importation of which it is sought to 
prohibit by adopting a uniform duty to No. 13, evasion of duty is 
impracticable under the Dutch standard alone, except through offi¬ 
cial fraud ill sampling or weighing. Crush such sugars thoroughly, 
still their color remains the same. Neither analysis nor polariza¬ 
tion are required to determine the intrinsic color and quality of 


11 


sugars between melada and sugars not above No. 10 Dutch stand¬ 
ard in natural color. Muscovadoes and molasses sugars, made by 
natural draining alone, although from No. 10 to 14 in color, can 
always be accurately determined, and classed for duty by the use of 
the Dutch standard only. 

Discolorations to evade duty begin with the higher grades, namely, 
with Centrifugals, Javas, and vacuum pan sugars and such foreign 
sugars as w^ould naturally be about No. 11 to No. 16 Dutch standard 
in color when honestly made, and which almost invariably test above 
92 and to 98 in crystallizable strength in 100 parts of raw sugar ma¬ 
terial. 

Natural discoloration of raw sugar to evade duty, especially as re¬ 
gards centrifugals, consists simply in the retention of molasses and 
impurities, or in adding an excess of lime, sulphuric acid, burnt 
sirup or caramel to the juice in defecators, in the pan, or in the 
mass in the centrifugal machine. Vacuum-pan sugars and clayed 
sugars may be similarly discolored by injection and leaching. Low¬ 
ering of color may be carried to any desirable extent in raw sugar, 
and still maintain therein 93 to 98 per cent, of crystallizable sugar, 
varying in color and strength in crystals at the option of manipu¬ 
lators. 

That the discoloration abuse is not confined to this country and 
practiced for the evasion of duty alone, may be seen in the follow¬ 
ing circular emanating from Holland—the birthplace of the Dutch 
standard—wherein analysis is adopted as an adjunct to the color 
standard, w^hich cannot be entirely superseded so long as color re¬ 
mains necessarily a principal factor in fixing the value of sugar 
among merchants for trade purposes. The circular is as follows: 

Kosendall, September 26, 1879. 

To the President and Members of the Central Committee of the Sugar Manufacturers 
of France: 

Gentlemen; We have the honor to inform you that two days ago the Minister of 
Finance has presented a law to prevent artificial coloration of sugars and the use of 
artificial mixtures intended to deceive as to the true value of sugars. 

Their value will be determined by chemical analysis. 

Please, gentlemen, accept the assurance of our distinguished consideration. 

B. JAEGAB, 
President. 

B. Reiqer, Secretary. 

It will be observed that only artificial mixtures are referred to in 
the Hollandic circular. Nevertheless, natural discolorations will 
quite as readily be detected and disposed of by analysis, such being 
practiced in manufacturing Java sugars, as well as centrifugals and 
other raw sugars of high crystallizable strength and value. Discol¬ 
oration of foreign sugars in the country of production is, and has 
long been, practiced to lower the grade and quality of sugar in ap¬ 
pearance, for the purpose of evading duty, and to raise the grade 
and quality of both raw and refined sugars, to deceive customers 
and obtain higher prices in the market than the same sugars of na¬ 
tural colors are worth intrinsically. Java clayed sugars are high 
priced, and mostly above 92 in crystallizable strength. Like centri¬ 
fugals and vacuum-pan sugars, they have long been manipulated in 


12 


color to evade duty—manipulations which Treasury officials, who 
have arbitrarily superseded collectors and appraisers, have thus far 
failed to cope with understandingly, much less successfully. 

The era of free trade in sugar has not been reached, and if foreign 
sugars were placed on the free list, producing countries would levy 
an offset export duty thereon, thus maintaining the cost as before, 
or increasing it. On the other hand, uniform duty would discrim¬ 
inate against the hulk of imported sugars which we must mainly 
depend upon for the production of refined sugar suitable to the im¬ 
perative demands of eight-tenths of the people, and favor centrifu¬ 
gals and high-grade sugars immensely, without benefit to the great 
mass of consumers or the revenue, and would check consumption 
and home productiouj as shown elsewhere. Classification accord¬ 
ing to quality, for the purpose of levying duty on sugar, remains, 
therefore, an inevitable sequence of wise legislation. 

In order to counteract discolorations practiced to evade duty under 
a color standard alone, it becomes necessary to combine analysis 
with the color standard in order to determine accurately the quality 
and consequent foreign value of imported sugars, and to establish 
an equitable test line of crystallizable strength as a basis for levying 
duty. Naturally and equitably the line would fall between 91 and 
and 93, and should be established at 92 for cargo samples. Dry¬ 
ing samples and raising the test line above 92, discriminates in 
favor of centrifugals, clayed and vacuum-pan sugars, as will be here¬ 
inafter seen. 

During his investigations the writer has secured numerous cargo 
samples of various classes of imported sugars, including many con¬ 
taining artificial and natural discolorants, and caused them to be 
analyzed. He has also obtained the results of official and trade 
analyses of several hundred cargoes of imported sugars that have 
entered into consumption during 1875-’6-’7-’8-’9. The results cor¬ 
roborate and establish his former premises published in his “ Re¬ 
vised Analyses of the Sugar Question,’^ and repeated herein. For 
example, the imported sugars named below, when of natural color 
and condition, are found by analysis to contain crystallizable sugar 
approximately as follows. Per cent, of crystallizable sugar in 100 
parts of material. Extreme exceptions have been omitted: 


Melado_ 63 to 76 

Mexican sugar below 7 D. S_70 to 76 

China sugar 7 to 10 D. S-79 to 90 

Dullooah sugar, 7 to 10 D. S_75 to 84 

Gurpatta sugar, n. a., 7 D. S_77 to 86 

Iloilo sugar, 7 to 10 D. S-81 to 89 

Bahia sugar, n. a., 7 D. S-71 to 73 

Guadeloupe sugar, 7 to 10 D. S_80 to 87 

Peruvian concrete, n. a., 7 D. S_ 76 to 83 

Cuba clayed sugar, 7 to 12 D. S_ 87 to 96 

Molasses sugar, 7 to 12 D. S-'_86 to 91 

Martinique sugar, 7 to 10 D. S_82 to 89 

Beet sugar above 7 to 14 D. S_93 to 97 

Java clayed sugar above 7 to 14 D. S_93 to 97 

Demerara sugar, n. a., 7 D. S_83 to 88 

Centrifugal sugar, 7 D. S. (low)-91 to 92 

Chuyang sugar, n. a., 7 D. S- 83 to 89 

Taal sugar below 7 D. S_ 71 to 73 



















13 


Penang sugar, n. a., 7 D. S_ 69 to 75 

Formosa sugar, n. a., 7 D. S_73 to 80 

Cebu sugar, n. a., 7 D. S_ 74 to 85 

Manila sugar below 7 D. S_76 to 82 

Macio sugar, n. a., 7 D. S_86 to 89 

Egyptian sugar, 7 to 10 D. S_80 to 90 

Barbadoes sugar, 7 to 10 D. S_86 to 89 

Pernambuco sugar, 7 to 10 D. S-84 to 89 

Muscovado sugar, 10 to 14 D. S_85 to 91 

Porto Kico sugar, 7 to 12 D. S_84 to 91 

Beet sugar, n. a. 7 D. S_90 to 92 

Java clayed sugar, n. a,, 7 D. S_90 to 92 

Hawaiian sugar, 7 to 10 D. S_-.__89 to 91 

Demerara sugar, 9 to 12 D. S-90 to 96 

Centrifugal sugar above 7 to 14 D. S_93 to 97 

Surinam sugar, n. a., 7 D. S-81 to 86 

It may at once be seen in the above schedule, which embraces 
more than 300 cargo tests, and includes crop variations, that 92 
degrees of crystallizable strength in 100 parts of properly-sampled 
raw sugar provides a natural and equitable dividing line for coun¬ 
teracting both artificial and natural colorants, and equitably de¬ 
termining the natural color, quality, and value of discolored raw 
sugars, in order to levy correct duty thereon. Raw sugars natur¬ 
ally testing above 92 in equitable cargo samples run 93 to 96 as a 
rule, with comparatively few exceptions, and should be covered in 
a single classification when not above 13 Dutch standard in natural 
color, which, in the case of large-grain centrifugals, can only he 
determined by crushing the grain. 

Samples are before me of a cargo of large-grained centrifugal 
sugar, which appears to be not above 10 Dutch standard in color, 
and the cargo was so entered and liquidated—the samples test of 
sugar, 97; imp., 2.5; water, 0.5. On being crushed, the sugar is 
Ho. 20 Dutch standard in color, and excellent for eating, the crys¬ 
tals having been outwardly darkened with sugar impurities, doubt¬ 
less to evade duty. Of course, such and similar sugars should pay 
duty on intrinsic color, as being above 92 and above 16 Dutch 
standard—the true intent and purpose of the Dutch standard being 
to measure the intrinsic color of sugars, while by analysis we measure 
the intrinsic quality of sugar. 

On the other hand, refining muscovado sugars, although mostly 
10 Dutch standard or above in natural color, acquired simply by 
draining, contain less than 92 per cent, of crystallizable sugar. 
Analyses of 47 difierent cargoes of muscovadoes are before me, 
which tested as follows in crystallizable sugar : Lowest test, 84.80 ; 
highest test, 92; general range of cargo tests, 85 to 91; average of 
cargo tests, 88.89. Nevertheless, the claim that light-colored mus¬ 
covadoes are virtually prohibited by the present tariff proves mis¬ 
taken, inasmuch as color being the prime factor of value in raw 
grocery sugars (muscovadoes made light and fit for eating by defe¬ 
cation in addition to natural draining,) it is evident that muscovado 


sugars imported suitable for consumption will, if consumers want 
them, bring value accordingly, as in the case of Louisiana sugars, 
and should pay a higher rate of duty than undefecated muscovadoes 
suited only to refining purposes. 

Refining sugars above No. 7 Dutch standard in natural color are 


















14 


intrinsically more valuable proportionally in refined outturn than 
refining sugars No. 7 Dutch standard or below in natural color, and 
should therefore pay a higher rate of duty. Refining sugars above 
No. 10 Dutch standard in natural color also produce a more valuable 
proportionate outturn in refined product than can be obtained from 
sugars above No. 7 and not above No. 10 Dutch standard in natural 
color. Consequently, muscovadoes should pay a higher rate of 
duty. Lower grades of refining sugar are most extensively im¬ 
ported and used for refining, simply on account of the demands of 
consumers for the cheaper grades of refined sugars. That such 
grades cannot, however, be obtained, in the relative proportion 
required for consumption, from high-grade light-colored raw sugars 
alone, is an absolute fact. (See schedules of cargo analyses herein, 
showing the comparative crystallizable strength of imported refin¬ 
ing sugars of natural color; see also page 28, section III, R. A. S. 
Q., showing comparative cost of refining.) 

Consumers demand the cheaper grades of refined sugars for con¬ 
sumption in preference to imported muscovado sugars that have 
been defecated or semi-refined in the country of production. Mus¬ 
covado sugars, in general, are unfit to eat, unless defecated by pre- 
cipitants. Natural draining of concentrated raw sugar or melado 
does not sufficiently eliminate impurities therefrom for purposes of 
consumption. When thus freed from molasses and impurities, and 
made brighter, muscovadoes test higher, and are more valuable 
than drained or partially-drained sugars, and should pay higher 
duty accordingly when imported suitable for consumption. 

Nevertheless, refiners can, from the lower grade of refining sugars, 
including melado, produce pure refined sugars golden-hued to white 
in color, for consumption, with which raw foreign muscovadoes can 
never compete successfully in prices, neither under an equitable 
tariff classification, nor with the duty on all sugars abolished. 
Foreign muscovadoes therefore now naturally seek tariff* protection 
to enable them to supersede American refined sugars for imme¬ 
diate consumption, and, for a pretense, malign the present tariff* 
classifications and demand tariff modifications discriminative against 
the numerous low grades of refining sugars from which the bulk of 
American refined sugars now required by the masses for consump¬ 
tion are produced. As with centrifugals, this is also a question of 
Foreign versus American interests and industries. 

Efforts of the Treasury officials to increase the revenue from im¬ 
ported sugars have culminated in evaporating moisture from cargo 
samples of raw sugars, and raising the test line to suit dry samples 
when levying duty, under the pretense that the percentages of 
sugar in the dry substance are the practical equivalents of those 
(the percentages) specified of sugars as imported before the water 
is evaporated.” In the matter of raw sugar, the merchant buys 
and pays for the sugar composite, impurities, moisture, and all. 
The government weighs the cargo on arrival, charges duty on every 
pound of moisture, and then cooly fixes the rate of duty at pleasure, 
by levying on samples wherein the texture of the cargo of imported 
sugar has been changed by forced evaporation. 


15 


Whatever the intent, this method of increasing the revenue from 
sugar discriminates against low grades and in favor of centrifugals, 
Javas, &c., as will be seen in the following schedule of different 
kiuds of imported raw sugars, which, avoiding extremes, exhibits 
the range of percentages of natural moisture purchased and con¬ 
tained in 100 parts of sugar texture, as sampled and analyzed on 
arrival of the cargoes: 

Melado contains 10 to 15 parts water. 

Iloilo sugars, 3 to 6 water. 

Molasses sugars, 4 to 6 water. 

Formosa sugars, 6 to 8 water. 

Porto Rico sugars, 4 to 7 water. 

Pernambuco sugars, 3 to 6 water. 

Egyptian sugars, 3 to 6 water. 

Cuba clayed, 1 to 3J water. 

Beet sugars, IJ to 4 water. 

Manila sugars, 3 to 7 water. 

Muscovado sugars, 4 to 7 water. 

China sugars, 3 to water. 

Chuyang sugars, 3 to 5 water. 

Dullooah sugars, 3 to 5J water. 

Peruvian concrete, 6 to 8 water. 

Guadeloupe sugars, 4 to 8 water. 

Javas (except low,) J to 2 water. 

Centrifugal sugars J to 2 water. 

Forced evaporation of moisture, which must be restored in re¬ 
fining, would greatly reduce the weight of sugar composite im¬ 
ported, every pound of which is charged with duty, and force the 
crystallizable strength of most low grade-sugars above 90 and 94, 
by changing their natural texture. Why not also eliminate im¬ 
purities, including invert sugars from the lower-grade sugars, and 
force them up to 99 at once for levying duty? The masterly mois¬ 
ture evaporation or dried sample process produces results like the 
following: 

A cargo of centrifugal sugar enters and tests, crystals, 95.5; im¬ 
purities, 3.5 ; water, 1. Evaporate the water, and 99 parts become 
100 parts, and test, crystals, 96.5; impurities, 3.5. A cargo of cen¬ 
trifugal or Java sugar is imported, and tests, crystals, 94; impuri¬ 
ties, 4; water, 2. Dry out the water, and 98 parts become 100 
parts, which test, crystals, 96; impurities, 4—all right for centri¬ 
fugals. On the other hand, a cargo of molasses sugars enters that 
tests, crystals, 89 ; impurities, 5.60; water, 5.40. Dry the samples, 
and 94.60 parts become 100 parts, that test, crystals, 94.40; impuri¬ 
ties, 5.60. A cargo of Pernambuco sugar is imported, which tests, 
crystals, 86.10; impurities, 7.78; water, 6.12. Dry the samples, 
and 93.88 parts become 100, and test, crystals, 92.22; impurities, 
7.78. A cargo of Porto Rico sugar enters that tests, crystals, 88.40; 
impurities, 4.85; water, 6.75. Dry the samples, and 93.25 parts 
become 100 parts, and test, crystals, 95.15; impurities, 4.85. A 
cargo of Martinique sugar is imported that tests, crystals, 84.40; 
impurities, 8.22; water, 7.38. Dry the samples, and 92.62 parts 


16 


become 100, and test, crystals, 91.78; impurities, 8.22, and so on. 

Evaporation liberates a proportion of molasses impurities; con¬ 
sequently no increase in the percentage of impurities is allowed 
above, the result of evaporating moisture from raw cane sugar being 
to diminish the proportion of molasses impurities therein, and in¬ 
crease the crystalline qualities thereof, just as, by natural purging 
and evaporation of melado, dry muscovado sugar is produced. 

Under the dry test innovation a cargo of naturally dark low- 
quality sugar, useless for consumption until refined at more than 
double the cost of refining centrifugals, only capable of producing 
a refined outturn far below the usual outturn from centrifugals in 
value, may be doomed to pay duty not only on every pound of the 
full weight of the cargo, water and all, but at the high rate of duty 
charged upon centrifugals and Javas naturally of a grade and quality 
above 94 when imported. Nothing could better illustrate the in¬ 
justice of uniform duty on sugar—whether to 10, 13, 16, or on all 
sugars—than the illegal discriminations resulting from changing 
the texture of imported sugar by dry sampling, to increase the rev¬ 
enue therefrom. On the other hand, lumbering the tariff and cus¬ 
toms business with different rates of duty on sugar for every num¬ 
ber in color, and every degree of crystallizable strength therein 
determined, or any approach to such a system, would be irrational. 

The Treasury Department method of drying samples of sugar 
for testing cargoes of imported sugars, to levy duty thereon, thus 
changing the texture thereof, is simply absurd, and an outrage upon 
merchants and refiners which should at once cease, and better 
methods obtain. As usual, the pernicious results fall upon con¬ 
sumers. 

Refiners who petition for and advocate a uniform duty to No. 13 
simply propose to apply trade thuggism to their own throats. How 
long do such men imagine it will be before Cuba, Demerara and 
Company, with their English and American allies, will fully refine 
sugars for this country ? Rest assured that these foreign powers 
will, if successful now, find means to carry a uniform duty to 16 ; 
and, when fully prepared for successful competition with American 
refiners, they will find means to have the sugar duty abolished in 
short order. 

The hopes of American consumers, and for American industries, 
in regard to sugar, are in the retention of a classification sugar 
tariff which, when honestly applied, provides us with all grades of 
raw sugar material for the production of all grades of refined sugars 
required by consumers, and in pushing forward home production of 
beet and cane sugar. Any change from the equitable uniformity 
of the present tariff on sugar is dangerous. Even a reduction 
of duty on sugar, which should obtain^ ought to be uniform on all 
grades. 

Actual and prospective agents of foreign sugar producers who 
advocate and petition for a uniform duty to No. 13 thereby adver¬ 
tise their motives for so doing. On this point it is enough to say 
that the higher the grades of imported sugars consigned to them 
the greater their commissions. 


17 


Importers and buyers of foreign sugars who advocate and petition 
for a uniform^ duty to 13 simply desire to accommodate trade, 
and conduct it upon some substantial basis. Any sugar tariff that 
remains permanent will suit their business, and as the sky of trade 
manipulations in sugar-tariff plans seems auspicious for the success 
of these plausible uniform duty to Ko. 13 designs against consumers’ 
interests and rights, they fall into line on that side, some at the 
request of their customers, and some to suit their individual trade 
interests or prejudices ; as a matter of course, thinking little and 
caring less about the interests of American consumers, industries, 
and revenue, beyond the question of how much profit can be cleared 
by each transaction. 

The Secretary of the Treasury clamors for forty millions of dol¬ 
lars revenue from sugars. This must be drawn from the food 
necessities of American consumers, the great mass of whom can 
only afford to buy the lowest grades of refined sugar, and must, 
under a uniform duty to E'o. 13, reduce consumption, because they 
would be compelled to pay the price of higher grades, or go with¬ 
out; yet it is proposed by uniformists virtually to prohibit the im¬ 
portation of low grades of raw sugar, from which we now actually 
receive more than 50 per cent, of the revenue from sugar. Although 
through frauds, which a uniform duty to No. 13 proposes to legalize, 
we apparently receive more than -i-f of the duty from sugar, the No. 
13 project proposes to curtail the Secretary’s present revenue re¬ 
sources from low grades merely to fatten its projectors. 

Refiners of sugar known well enough that glucose and other 
adulterants can best be employed to their advantage and profit when 
Centrifugals, Javas, and other high grades are used for refining; the 
higher the crystallizable strength of raw sugar the more glucose 
may be added. Centrifugals testing 95 to 98 can be safely reduced 
with glucose at an enormous profit to refiners, when it would not 
pay with Manillas and other low-grade sugars. Every pound of 
glucose used reduces importations of raw sugar to the same extent. 
Uniform duty to No. 13 would simply encourage and increase the use of 
glucose^ by shutting out low grades and providing easy and, profitable means 
of offsetting the necessary labor and materials expended in the more skill¬ 
ful and commendable process of refining low grades of raw sugars up to 
the standard required by consumers without cheating them with adulterants. 

It is irrational to pretend that this government cannot collect the 
full revenue from sugar under the present classification tariff*, and a 
proviso authorizing the use of analysis and a test line as adjuncts 
to the Dutch standard, to counteract the increasing practice of dis¬ 
coloring foreign sugars of high intrinsic grade to evade duty. 
When public interests, American industries, and consumers’ wants 
are equitably considered, there is not a tenable objection against 
the present tariff classification of sugar for levying duty. The very 
fact that the principal advocates of and petitioners for a uniform 
duty to No. 13 strenuously oppose the use of the polariscope and 
analysis for testing sugars is ominous of fraud. 

Adopt such tests and discolorations must cease. So long as out¬ 
side color is allowed to be the standard for levying duty, merchants 
3 


18 


will import, and producers will make, discolored sugars of the high¬ 
est intrinsic quality; and it is boldly sought to legalize this treach¬ 
ery against our government, and to deprive consumers of the re¬ 
fined product from low grades, thus shut out, by obtaining a 
uniform duty to 13. These uniformists complain that the 
sugar trade is unsettled. Who and what unsettled it? Foreign 
producers in Cuba and Demerara, and their American allies, by 
discoloring natural grades of sugars, from No. 11 to above 13 Dutch 
standard in natural color (which all centrifugals and vacuum-pan. 
sugars of intrinsic grade above 90 or 91 inevitably are intrinsically) 
to evade duty, and by the maudlin efforts of unskilled Treasury 
officials to counteract the fraudulent practices, now pressed too far 
by truth and true analyses of the sugar question,’’ the frauds 
must be legalized to quiet the sugar trade by a uniform duty to 13 
Dutch standard, while American consumers are to be robbed of low- 
grade sugar product, and American industries must be throttled to 
make the fortunes of these allied uniformists. 

Mr. Speaker, the agents, importers, refiners, and merchants who, 
with their foreign and American allies, advocate and petition Con¬ 
gress for a uniform duty on sugar to No. 16, to No. 13, or to No. 
10, only seek to enrich themselves. This, as the world now goes, 
is called business, and needs no comment; but the plans by which 
they propose to accomplish this (among which appear that of a 
uniform duty to No. 13 or 10 or 16) are pregnant with gigantic evils 
and outrages, which their success would entail upon American con¬ 
sumers and American industries, whereby also the consumption 
of, and revenue from, sugar would be decreased inversely to our 
growing population, and the existing system of revenue robbery be 
legalized by Congress. 

Uniform duty on raw sugar to No. 13 or to No. 10 means that 
the raw sugar material we require shall be semi-refined in Cuba 
and other sugar-producing countries contiguous to the United 
States and in Hawaii, at an annual industrial loss to this country of 
at least |40,000,000. It means the virtual prostration of t.he sugar¬ 
refining and sugar-producing industries of the United States, and 
the building up of foreign sugar-manufacturing industries at our 
expense. It means a heavy loss of revenue from sugar or a higher 
rate of taxation than at present on every pound of sugar we con¬ 
sume. It means legalized oppression and robbery of consumers of 
sugar, by virtually depriving them of low grades of pure refined 
sugar, now obtained in quantity from low grades of raw-sugar 
material. It means adulteration of high grades of refined sugar, 
which constitute the only possible out-turn from centrifugals "and 
semi-refined sugars in sufficient quantity for consumption, with corn 
glucose to supply the loss of low grades now required and used for 
refining. It means American bondage to foreign sugar producers 
and foreign sugar refiners for years to come. It means the further 
enrichment of Cuba by from fifteen to twenty millions of dollars 
annually, to be added to the $70,000,000 she now draws from us for 
sugar. It means the exclusion of all means of detecting high-grade 
sugar frauds upon the revenue, and a frightful increase of robbery 


19 


by false sampling and false weighing. It means easy chairs for 
Treasury officials and customs officers, and the enrichment of official 
moiety hunters and scourgers of honest merchants who create and 
sustain American commerce. It means death or lingering sickness 
to the cane-sugar productive industries of Louisiana, and the crush¬ 
ing in embryo of beet and sorghum sugar productive enterprises in 
this country. It means colossal fortunes to Cuban and other foreign 
speculators and their American allies who petition Congress and 
this committee for uniform duty on all sugar to Ho. 13 Dutch stand¬ 
ard in color, or, failing in that, to Ho. 10^ to the exclusion of lower 
grades, and without analysis or hinderance of any kind to check 
their raids upon American consumers, industries, and revenue, 
already suffering enormously through high-grade sugar frauds thus 
sought to be perpetuated. 

Raw cane sugar being composed of white crystals of sugar and 
impurities which form black molasses, the proportions of this ad¬ 
mixture produces varying shades of color, which have rightly been 
recognized and accepted as reliable indications of the quality and 
value of raw cane sugars when in their normal condition. Outside 
eoloration, intended to deceive as to the true value of sugars, having 
been successfully practiced to evade duty, it has become necessary 
to employ analysis as an adjunct to the color standard, in order to 
accurately determine the actual quality and value of imported sugars 
for the purpose of levying duty thereon correctly. 

Uniform duty on raw sugars must be arbitrarily discriminative, 
and would therefore interfere with and largely prohibit importations 
of entirely raw sugar material by encouraging the foreign industries 
of semi-refining and centrifugation of raw-sugar material to the 
detriment of home manufacturing and sugar productive industries, 
interfere with the rights of consumers, and curtail consumption; 
while the only practical duty discrimination in the present sugar 
tariff is the uniform 25 'per cent, addendum thereto. 

The present tariff classification of meladaand other foreign sugars 
are substantially in accordance with trade usage throughout the 
world, and therefore are adequate and equitable for levying duty 
on imported sugars, being peculiarly adapted for such purpose. 
Consequently, they ought to be retained. Should the following 
changes or modififications of the present sugar tariff be adopted sub¬ 
stantially—reasons for which have already been presented by the 
writer—consumption will rapidly increase, and the general results 
be eminently beneficial and satisfactory to the people of this coun¬ 
try, and produce over $30,000,000 revenue per annum. 

One. Abolish the 25 per cent, ad valorem addendum altogether, 
and also reduce the present specific duty on all raw sugars not above 
16 Dutch standard in natural color, subject to the 92 line provision 
at least half a cent per pound pro rata throughout. 

Two. All raw sugars under Ho. 10 Dutch standard in color, con¬ 
taining ninety-two (92) per cent, or more of crystallizable sugar, to 
pay the same duty as sugars above Ho. 10 and not above Ho 13 
Dutch standard in color. 

Three. Strike out of the present sugar tariff* the words, “ after 


bein^ refined,” contained in the section relating to the adulterations 
and colorations of refined sugars. 

Four. Equitable samples of imported sugars to be secured and 
used for purposes of appraisement as soon as practicable after the 
arrival and entry of such sugars, and the actual condition of such 
samples, when first selected, shall determine the grade and quality 
of the cargoes they represent for levying duty thereon. 

During the reading of the paper the following discussions took 
place: 

Mr. Tucker. How much sugar do we consume per capita in this 
country? 

Mr. Brown. The per capita consumption last year was thirty- 
eight pounds. That includes molasses, melada, and all products of 
the raw material. We should have received fifty millions of rev¬ 
enue from sugar in 1879 instead of about forty millions, if it had 
not been for the frauds and swindles committed upon the Treasury. 

* * 

Mr. Dunnell. These sugars which you denominate centrifugal 
sugars, are they below the grade of No. 13 ? 

"Mr. Brown. They are usually between No. 11 or 12 and No. 14; 
from that up to 16. 

Mr. Tucker. You say that a uniform rate of duty on sugar up to 
No. 13 Dutch Standard would diminish the amount of sugar re¬ 
quired for consumption? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. Tucker. Do you mean to say that the gross amount of sugar 
consumed in this country would be lessened? 

Mr. Brown. No, sir, but the gross amount of raw material re¬ 
quired (being of a higher grade) would be far less for manufactur¬ 
ing purposes. Consequently, every pound less would be so much 
less duty to the government. 

Mr. Garfield. Are the sugars that are produced in the Hawaiian 
Islands centrifugal sugars? 

Mr. Brown. No, sir; but by the industry expended there the 
sugars are made of high grade, which we must pay for. 

Mr. Garfield. Do they use the centrifugal process in the Ha¬ 
waiian Islands ? 

Mr. Brown. Not that I am aware of at present. They bring the 
sugars up by a high degree of draining, and they also clay their 
sugars. 

Mr. Tucker. How many million pounds of sugar are introduced 
from the Sandwich Islands into this country up to No. 7 ? 

Mr. Brown. None. 

Mr. Tucker. How many between No. 7 and Np. 10 ? 

Mr. Brown. Eight million pounds. 

Mr. Tucker. And between No. 10 and No. 13 ? 

Mr. Brown. Sixteen million pounds. 

Mr. Tucker. And from No. 13 up to No. 16? 

Mr. Brown. Fifteen million pounds. 

Mr. Tucker. And how much above No. 16 ? 


21 


Mr. Brown. Only one million pounds. 

Mr. Tucker. Have you any statistics to show the difierent grades 
of sugar imported into this country from the Hawaiian Islands be¬ 
fore the treaty with the Hawaiian Government, under which sugar 
is admitted free? 

Mr. Brown. Yes; but I have not the statistics with me. I will 
furnish them to the committee. 

Mr. Gibson. Be kind enough also to furnish to the committee at 
the same time a statement showing the quality of sugars now im¬ 
ported from the Hawaiian Islands. 

Mr. Brown. I will do so. 

Mr. Mills. Also state the effect which that Hawaiian treaty has 
had on the price of sugars in San Francisco, if it has had any effect. 

Mr. Brown. I will do so. 

Mr. Garfield. Do the Hawaiian Islands refine their sugar for 
their own use? 

Mr. Brown. They refine it by claying it and bringing it up to the 
standard of fair Louisiana eating sugar. 

Mr. Garfield. Do they buy refined sugars from us ? 

Mr. Brown. Hot a pound. 

Mr. Gareield. Do they buy refined sugars from anybody ? 

Mr. Brown. Hot a pound that I am aware of. I never have seen 
any statistics from the British Government (with which I am in con¬ 
stant communication) or from France, showing that they do. 

Mr. Mills. Do you know who they are who are raising sugar in 
the Hawaiian Islands? 

Mr. Brown. It is simply a continuation of the old process of 
raising sugar by the aborigines. Of course it brings in Americans 
and American capital and other people, who share the profits. 

Mr. Mills. Do you know any large American capitalist who is 
engaged in this sugar business in the Hawaiian Islands? 

Mr. Brown. I shall be able to give you those facts, but I have not 
embodied them here. 

Mr. Kelley. Have you any information on the question as to 
whether the sugar producers in the Hawaiian Islands are in the 
habit of importing and employing Chinese laborers? 

Mr. Brown. I have some information on that point. 

Mr. Kelley. If you have any accurate information on the sub¬ 
ject I wish you also to submit it. 

Mr. Brown. I shall do so. 

* * :le :ic * * 

Mr. Garfield. Define what you mean by thuggism in trade. 

Mr. Brown. I mean what is sometimes called cut-throatism; that 
is, the attempt of one party by any means to obtain supremacy in 
trade, thereby strangling every interest that comes in the way. 

^ ^ ^ 

Mr. Gibson. What is the name of the gentleman who furnished 
you with these figures in regard to sugar raising in Louisiana? 

Mr. Brown. Mr. Schlatrie. 

Mr. Mills. Have you got statistics showing the American pro¬ 
duction of sugar for the last forty years ? 


22 


Mr. Brown. Not here, but I will furnish such with pleasure. 

:je * 

Mr. Brown here exhibited to the committee two small glass 
phials, one containing very dark sugar of large grains, and the 
other containing what appeared to be a pure white sugar, and he 
informed the committee that these two specimens were identically 
the same sugar and that that sugar had been recently entered at 
the port of Boston in the dark shape and had been admitted as 
number 10 sugar. The white • sugar in one of the specimens was 
nothing else than the dark sugar crushed, and he invited any 
member of the committee to test the accuracy of that statement by 
crushing some of the large dark colored grains—which Mr. Gar¬ 
field proceeded to do, with the same result. 

Mr. Garfield. Do you mean to say that if these coarse crystals 
are pulverized the result will be a clear white sugar ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. This sugar I pulverized myself. It was 
entered at No. 10, while it should have been entered at No. 20. 

The Chairman. What became of the coloring matter that appears 
in the dark specimen ? 

Mr. Brown. The coloring matter in this only amounts to one per 
cent. 

Mr. Tucker. The coloring matter is simply exterior to the 
crystals ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. These crystals are built up in vacuum 
pans where the moisture is thrown out and then a mixture of 
molasses is thrown in, and this is the result. The intrinsic color of 
this sugar is No. 20. 

Mr. Conger. Do I understand you to say that this specimen of 
light-colored sugar, which you exhibit, was crushed by yourself 
from these dark grains ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir; and I should be happy to have any mem¬ 
ber of the committee take some of these coarse grains and crush 
them here. 

Mr. Garfield. This sugar, as I understand you, was entered as 
No. 10? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. Garfield. And this white sugar is the same as the dark 
sugar when crushed ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. Garfield. No other operation has been performed upon it, 
except crushing it ? 

Mr. Brown. No, sir. 

Mr. Garfield. And this dark-colored sugar is No. 10 in color? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. Garfield. And this white sugar produced by crushing No. 
10 is No. 20 in color? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. Garfield. Would a similar process as to No. 7 have the same 
efiects ? 

Mr. Brown. No ; not if it is No. 7 natural color. 

Mr. Garfield. Why not ? 


23 


Mr. Brown. Simply beeause No. 7 is of itself carried as high in 
color as it can be without further refining. 

Mr. Garfield. This specimen (holding up the dark-colored sugar) 
has a yellowish straw color like wheat. When crushed it is like 
flour. There has been no artificial coloring, you say, except in so 
far as crushing it is an artificial process, but the one specimen is the 
natural wheat and the other is the ground flour of the same wheat. 

Mr. Brown. Yes sir ; these are b^oth the natural product. 

Mr. Garfield. There is no coloring matter in either of these 
specimens ? 

Mr. Brown. No. 

Mr. Tucker. The crystal of sugar is always in itself white, is it 
not ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes; pure white. 

Mr. Tucker. The coloring matter in the specimen which by 
crushing became white was therefore merely on the surface of the 
crystal ? 

Mr. Brown. Entirely so. 

Mr. Tucker. The crystal itself being white, the substance when 
crushed is white, except the mere infinitesimal coloring on the 
surface ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. Garfield. What is this yellowish color on the surface of 
these crystals ? Is it a film of molasses ? 

Mr. Brown. In this case it is simply coloring matter or molasses. 
The syrup may have been burned a trifle. But in this other case 
(holding up a specimen of Demerara sugar) it is a different matter. 
To produce this color in Demerara they use lime in various forms. 
That is the case particularly for our benefit. Demerara sugar in¬ 
tended for England is not limed to that extent. 

;fc si« }}: ♦ 

Mr. Gibson. You use the phrase ‘‘ making sugar.’’ Do we make 
sugar in this country ? 

Mr. Brown. In using the word “ make,” I simply mean the re¬ 
duction of cane juice to a crystallizable form. That I call making 
sugar. 

Mr. Gibson. The crystal exists in the sugar in nature ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. Gibson. And the whole process of making sugar is to sepa¬ 
rate the wood fiber and the water from the pure crystal ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. Gibson. And that process discloses the crystals ? 

Mr. Brown. No, sir; the crystals are disclosed at first, inasmuch 
as they are formed of molasses and sugar. 

sfc ♦ 

Mr. Garfield having in the meantime crushed some of the coarse 
sugar, showed the result to the members of the committee. 

Mr. Kelley. Then, instead of the polariscope, all that you would 
w'ant to ascertain the real grade of the sugar would be a pestle and 
mortar ? 

Mr. Brown. That would amply settle the difficulty. It would 


24 


would amply settle it until you came to discoloration by means of 
lime, or of lime subjected to the action of sulphuric acid. 

Mr. Kelley. But with the class of sugars that you have been 
speaking of, a pestle and mortar would disclose the fraudulent 
coloring ? 

Mr. Brown. Certainly. 

Mr. Mills. What did that sugar cost ? 

Mr. Brown. I was informed that the cost of it was either 6 or 6 J 
cents a pound, duty unpaid. It was entered as Ko. 10, and paid 
duty at that rate, 

Mr. Kelley. What ought that sugar to have been worth if it 
were Ko. 10 ? 

Mr. Brown. If it were Ko. 10, it should have been worth about 
4 cents a pound in the producing country, duty unpaid. 

Mr. Conger. What would it cost to reduce this dark sugar [in¬ 
dicating one of the specimens] in a grinding mill to this white 
sugar [indicating the other specimen] ? 

Mr. Brown. One-eighth of one of per cent. 

Mr. Kelley. If every family kept its own pestle and mortar, it 
would only cost the original investment of capital in the pestle and 
mortar ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. 

:)« sic ♦ 

Mr. Morrison. You said that you were going to talk in the in¬ 
terest of consumers, and you have been making pretty much the 
same argument as is made by refiners of low-grade sugars. Do I 
understand you to reason that the interest of the consumers and 
the interest of the refiners of low-grade sugars are identical ? 

Mr. Brown. I do not reason in that way. 

Mr. Morrison. Then I do not understand you. 

Mr. Brown. A branch of manufacturing trade may of itself be 
very profitable and yet be in accordance with the interests of the 
consumer, while another manufacturer in the same branch of busi¬ 
ness may so manipulate his business by cheating the consumer as 
to make money much faster. 

*5|c**:|e:|c * * 

Mr. Mills. Coming back to those two specimens of sugar which 
you have shown us, did I understand you to say that that sugar was 
admitted at a low grade ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes; it was admitted at Ko. 10 and should have 
been rated at No. 20. 

***** ;jc 

Mr. Mills. What is the best kind of a tarifl;" on sugar—specific 
or advalorem ? 

Mr. Brown. The specific tarifip is preferable for the simple reason 
that the rnoment you turn to a direct ad-valoren tarifi* (not in prin¬ 
ciple but in practice) those frauds are diverted into another channel. 

Mr. Mills. How would you have the duty specific ? 

Mr. Brown. I would have such a specific duty as will in sub¬ 
stance retain the present order of classification of sugar by the 


25 


color standard up to whatever you choose to make it in crystallizable 
strength—say No. 92. 

Mr. Mills. How are you going to detect frauds if you are to be 
governed by the color standard ? 

Mr. Brown. As an adjunct of the color standard, I would intro¬ 
duce analysis or grinding, or any other process by which the Secre¬ 
tary of the Treasury would be able to determine the grades of 
sugar. Either the polariscope or analysis will answer the purpose. 

Mr. Kelley. Or grinding? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. Tucker. Was that (indicating the dark-colored specimen) the 
natural coloring of that sugar? 

Mr. Brown. No, sir; it is not a natural color for that sugar. 

Mr. Tucker. Why is it not? 

Mr. Brown. Simply because after that sugar is worked in the 
vacuum pan it is white, or nearly so. If this sugar were left at its 
natural color, it would be up to No. 19 at least. 

Mr. Mills. Do you suppose that that sugar which was entered 
here as No. 10 was purchased from the producer as No. 20 ? 

Mr. Brown. The producer certainly sold it as No. 20, and it cost 
about 6 cents a pound. 

Mr. Mills. And it was brought here and entered as No. 10? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. Mills. Then, would it not have been safer for the Treasury 
to rely upon the foreign invoice as to the value of the sugar ? 

Mr. Brown. It would under existing circumstances, considering 
the immense growth of these transactions. 

Mr. Tucker. If this sugar was rated by the Dutch standard, is 
it No. 10 Dutch standard ? 

Mr. Brown. It is not No. 10 unless we choose to measure every¬ 
thing else in the same way, and unless we make it the custom and 
law that everything is to be determined by outward appearance. 

Mr. Tucker. Does not the Dutch standard make color-line the 
test ? 

Mr. Brown. The Dutch standard as applied in Holland and as 
applied with us is two different things. In Holland they would not 
take that crystal (indicating) and compare it with the Dutch standard 
until they had crushed the crystal. We here take it and compare 
it with the Dutch standard outwardly, and admit the sugar at a low 
rate, imagining that the law compels that to be done. The efforts 
by the Treasury Department to counteract these things have led to 
this inevitable conflict, and to all the circulars which the Secretary 
has been obliged to issue in regard to sampling of sugars. Why ? 
Simply because there is no way until Congress says that there shall 
be some other method of ascertaining the intrinsic color of sugars 
besides the outward appearance as compared with the Dutch standard. 

Mr. Gibson. What other method do you suggest ? 

Mr. Brown. I suggest that all sugars shall be subject to the test 
of analysis. Polarization is of itself quite competent under honest 
management to determine the crystallizable strength of sugar, but 
it may be easily mismanaged. But if we take analysis, it can be 
4 


26 


readily done. A man can analyze twenty samples of sugar 
altogether, and go through the analyzation very rapidly. I would 
undertake to have it done in from fifteen to thirty minutes, except 
in the matter of determining the ash, which must be done by burn¬ 
ing the sugar, and that takes a little longer time. Analysis is per¬ 
fect in that regard, but if you add to the anaysis the Dutch standard, 
and crushing the sugar into the proper condition for comparing it 
with the Dutch standard, then it is impossible to perpetrate fraud. 

Mr. Garfield. If instead of receiving that sugar in the custom 
house according to the standard which would make it !No. 10, the 
appraiser were authorized to crush it (as I have done,) he then could 
grade it according to its intrinsic color. In other words, if the 
appraiser were permitted to go by intrinsic rather than by external 
color, he would get nearer the truth ? 

Mr. Brown. He would get nearer the truth. 

The committee here adjourned until to-morrow. 


Washington, D. C., January 30, 1880. 

Mr. Henry A. Brown came before the committee and concluded 
the statement commenced by him yesterday. He said : 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: As to the point of discoloration, I 
mentioned the fact yesterda}^ that it was impracticable to color low- 
grade sugars provided they were of intrinsic color below No. 10 
Dutch standard, and provided they had not been turned into 
centrifugals at all. Any one of these sugars (indicating the speci¬ 
mens before him) will illustrate that fact. There is but one possible 
way by which anybody can raise the grade of color of a low grade 
of sugar which is below 10, provided it is not brought into a centri¬ 
fugal grade or crystal, and that way is by heating or evaporating 
the moisture in the sugar. This process, of course, takes from the 
raw material that is imported and on which duty is paid, and it 
increases the crystallizable strength on the amount of crystals in 
the sugar that is left. The more you evaporate or eliminate moist¬ 
ure and other impurities the more you increase the crystals in the 
sugar. This sample [putting some of it in a mortar] is a very low- 
grade sugar, below No. 7 Dutch standard. You may grind it as 
much as you like and the color will still remain below No. 7 
[demonstrating.] The moment that you go above No. 90 in crystal¬ 
lizable strength of sugar, and increase the size of the crystals, this 
sort of thing can no longer be done without disclosing a higher 
grade of sugar or a higher intrinsic color. Consequently, no low- 
grade sugars can evade the duty under the Dutch standard except 
by false weighing, and undoubtedly that is done to a great extent. 
But, otherwise the low-grade sugars are absolutely at the mercy of 
any common examiner who chooses to put honesty into the exami¬ 
nation, and he cannot be deceived. 

Mr. Conger. Can you take a high-grade sugar and color it so that 
when ground in that way it will not disclose its true character ? 

Mr. Brown. It is impossible, provided the coloration has not per¬ 
vaded it thoroughly. Any man can take that sugar, carry it to the 



27 


fire and heat it, thus eliminating moisture, increasing the crystals, 
and eliminating with the moisture a portion of the coloring matter. 
Consequently, the grade of the sugar comes up. It is not so with 
the crystals which I now show to the committee. You may heat 
them or do with them what you like and still the intrinsic color is 
the same. 

I now come to the Dernerara coloring of sugars. One of my 
agents has sent me samples of Dernerara sugar and another of my 
agents in Cuba is getting other samples for me, wherein there is 
no discoloration of any importance. He takes the sugar before the 
coloration takes place. Now, this sugar (holding up a sample) is 
colored by what we call burnt molasses. Formerly they colored 
sugar in Dernerara by the use of sulphate of lime or lime in excess. 
What was the difiiculty there ? The difliculty was very evident. 
They found that by the introduction of jtoo much lime, particularly 
of sulphate of lime, the crystallizable strength of the sugar was 
reduced and true dextrine turned out, which is an imitation of 
glucose. Therefore, it was unmarketable, and that mode of color¬ 
ation was abandoned for the natural colors which they now employ. 
When Mr. McKay says that they do not use acids in coloring sugars 
in Dernerara, he tells the truth. Of course they do not. It would 
not pay to use them any longer. They discover their mistake in 
using them, and therefore they no longer use sulphates of lime. 
Why? Because they blackened their sugars so much and impreg¬ 
nated them so much and turned so much of their crystallizable 
sugar into glucose, that the market would not take such sugars, 
and therefore the sugar growers in Dernerara resorted to the natural 
colors. That is the whole secret with the present troubles in the 
Dernerara sugars. Other modes may be used, but it is impossible 
(in order to make it a profitable, practical operation) to discolor 
sugar until the crystallizable strength of that sugar has been raised. 
The moment you go beyond 90 you raise the crystallizable strength 
of sugar and its value rapidly. Consequently, the Dernerara people 
no longer use a preparation of lime in the preparation of their 
sugars, but when they get them up as high as 98 in crystallizable 
strength, then the simplest thing in the world is to discolor the 
exterior of the crystals (as I showed you yesterday.) They do it 
just as it is done with rock candy, by first getting a crystal and 
then building that crystal up by adding sugar to it. The bigger 
the grain the better and stronger is the crystal, until they even 
reach as high as 99J per cent. 

Mr. Kelley. Show us by an experiment that this sugar [pointing 
to a sample] is colored externally. 

Mr. Gibson. That sugar is colored simply by caramelizing the 
strike. 

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kelley. It has been asserted here that there is no artificial 
coloring of Dernerara sugar. Now, if you can establish that there 
is such coloring, and that it is a fraud, why’not do it, instead of 
simply resting upon argument and assertion ? 

[Mr. Brown proceeded to make the experiment by pouring some 


28 


coarse-grained sugar into a mortar, and by pulverizing it, the result 
being a sugar much lighter in degree than the coarse sugar.] 

Mr. Tucker. Is that the Demerara sugar with which you are 
making that experiment ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. This is only a single illustration, but it is 
quite enough to show the intrinsic color of this discolored sugar, by 
which it will be found that the importers dodge one rate if not two 
rates of duty. This would become two or three degrees lighter by 
further pulverization. 

Mr. Garfield. At what grade, under the Dutch standard, would 
that sugar pass which you have just pulverized? 

Mr. Brown. This sugar, as pulverized now, would pass at the 
grade of No. 14 Dutch standard. It came in below^ No. 7. 

Mr. Garfield. That is, you have raised it seven degrees by pul¬ 
verization. 

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. • 

Mr. Kelley. And by imperfect pulverization ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. This sugar would come up to No. 16 very 
readily. 

Mr. Gibson. Is that dark sugar colored by artificial material. 

Mr. Brown. It is colored down by burnt molasses—impurities 
which may be termed caramel. 

Mr. Gibson. The color matter may be a part of the same material 
out of which the sugar itself is made ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir; it is the drainings from the sugar origi¬ 
nally. After having raised the sugar to its crystallizable strength, 
a certain percentage of the drainings is thrown back, thereby reduc¬ 
ing the coloring to a sufiicient degree. A Boston merchant testified 
in a case that the agreement with the sugar makers was that the 
sugar should test 96 degrees in crystallizable strength, but should 
be colored so as to come in at No. 10 Dutch standard. 

Mr. Carlisle. Where did you get that sample which you have 
just shown us ? 

Mr. Brown. 1 got my samples from cargoes. 

Mr. Carlisle. Where did you get that particular sample ? 

Mr. Brown. This particular sample came from one of my agents 
in Cuba. I think it is generally known that I have been investi¬ 
gating the matter thoroughly, and consequently must have agents. 

Mr. Carlisle. You said that this sugar had passed under No. 10. 

Mr. Brown. I do not employ any sample until it has been act¬ 
ually passed. 

Mr. Carlisle. If you got this sample from your agent in Deme¬ 
rara, how can it have passed the custom-house? 

Mr. Brown. I happened to have this one sample of Demerara 
sugar at my room, and I took it. Of course I state frankly that 
this sample has not come in, but I have samples which have come in. 

Mr. Carlisle. I understood you to state that that sugar had 
passed at the custom-house. 

Mr. Brown. I shall show you right here samples that did pass. 
Here [exhibiting a sample] is one that passed, only in this case the 
sugar is blacker and worse than in the sample which I produced. 


29 


Mr. Carlisle. Have you ever pulverized any of that sample? ^ 

Mr. Brown. Certainly. Here it is [exhibiting sample of lighter- 
colored sugar.] Here is the pulverized sugar. 

Mr. Kelley. That is a pulverization of the sugar which did pass ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. Carlisle. In what custom-house did that sugar pass, and to 
w^hom was it consigned? 

Mr. Brown. It passed at the New York custom-house, but I am 
unable to give data in regard to it, because my samples are so 
numerous. I can trace this sugar right to the Government archives 
if desirable. 

Mr. Garfield. JSTow, have you got any specimens of this wet 
sugar dried, so as to show the difference in color between the wet 
and the dried? 

Mr. Brown. Ko; but that can be easily done by drying some at 
the lire in this room. [A small quantity of the wet sugar was 
placed upon the fire shovel and heated at the fire, the result being 
to make its color somewhat lighter.] 

Mr. Garfield. What do you recommend the committee to do? 

Mr. Brown. I would recommend the committee to allow the 
present tariff to remain as it is—Dutch standard and all—and to 
add to the power of the Secretary authority to employ polarization, 
which discovers immediately the crystallizable strength, and conse¬ 
quently the market value, of sugar, and also to employ, when he 
sees fit, analysis in order to detect other ingredients in the export 
of refined sugar, lest he should be paying a drawback on sand and 
other articles. With that combination, and with the line drawn 
between what are known to be sugars that never rise above 91, all 
sugars testing above 92 should pay the higher rate of duty. 

Mr. Kelley. Would it not be well to insert in the tariff a pro¬ 
vision that appraisers shall not appraise crystals of above a certain 
size, so as to compel them to grind some of the sugar before ap¬ 
praising ? 

Mr. Brown. I omitted to say that all sugars of all grades should 
be ground and brought to the consistency, so to speak, of the Dutch 
standard, which, as you see, [exhibiting a sample,] is a fine-ground 
sugar, and consequently its intrinsic color is wholly shown. 

Mr. Tucker. Suppose you have the intrinsic color absolutely 
shown by grinding, would not the Dutch standard alone avail ? 

Mr. Brown. The Dutch standard alone would avail, but, in case 
of any question, the Secretary should still have authority to employ 
analysis. 

Mr. Garfield. Would the Dutch standard avail with wet sugar? 

Mr. Brown. Perfectly, always. The grinding would not affect 
the low-grade sugars or the wet sugars, and therefore should be 
confined to the others. If the Secretary is authorized to adopt 
these modes, the very moral power or moral suasion, so to speak, 
which you have thus exerted on importers would immediately put 
a stop to the coloration of high-grade sugars. But the Secretary 
must have authority to do this thing. 


30 


The Chairman (at the suggestion of Mr. Perot.) I am requested 
to ask you whether you have ever been in Demerara ? 

Mr. Brown. I have not been personally. I have been in the 
South American sugar-producing countries, and in very many 
others, having been a great traveler. 

The Chairman. I am also requested to ask you whether you are 
familiar with sugar manufacture from the sugar cane ? 

Mr. Brown. I will answer outside any questions 'which outsiders 
may choose to put to me; but I prefer now to confine myself solely 
to questions by the committee. 


ADDITIOITAL STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY A. BROWN. 

The following paper was filed by Mr. Henry A. Brown: 

Mr. Searles, apparently in defense of false classifications of high- 
grade sugars as low grade sugars to evade duty, misstated in his 
supplementary remarks before the committee on Saturday, January 
81, that “ Mr. Brown began with 1877 and muscovado sugar,’’ in 
his (Mr. Brown’s) tabular statement of classifications of imported 
sugars for duty in 1878, wherein I prove enormous frauds on the 
revenue. 

For the information of the honorable Committee on Ways and 
Means, and to exhibit more fully the magnitude of the frauds per¬ 
petrated by dissolving high-grade sugars to evade duty, which it is 
purposed by uniform rate of duty to No. 13 Hutch standard to legal¬ 
ize, I here present the compiled tabular statement and explanations 
on this point contained in my “ Revised Analyses of the Sugar 
Question,” from which I condensed my illustrations of false classifi¬ 
cations on Thursday last before this committee. It will be seen 
that I neither named muscovado sugars nor referred to them specifi¬ 
cally in any manner in this connection. 

The tabular deductions are as follows: 

In the ofiicial statement in the Bureau of Statistics of average 
foreign cost of raw sugars at places of shipment, computed in coin 
on the basis of foreign prices current in the fiscal years 1876 and 
1877, is recorded as follows in regard to sugars of natural color—in 
other words, undoctored sugars : 


iTtJl pUUUU. 

Sugar not above No. 7. D. S., in color-3.50 cents 

Sugar, above 7, not above 10 D. S,, in color___4.50 “ 

Sugar above 10, not above 13 D. S, in color_4.75 “ 

Average cost of low-grade sugar_ 4.25 “ 

Melado and cane sirup- 3*50 “ 


According to the sworn testimony of importers and refiners as 
ofiicially recorded, the prices paid foreign producers for raw sugars 
imported in 1877, 1878, average as follows : 


, JTCl pUUIlU. 

Sugar not above No. 7 D. S., in color_3.25 cents 

Sugar above 7, not above 10 D S., in color_ 3.75 “ 

Sugar above 10, not above 13 D. S., in color_4.00 “ 

Average cost of low-grade sugars_3.66 “ 

Melado and cane sirup- 2.75 “ 













31 


The following tables, XIII to XVIII inclusive, present a complete 
exhibit of the grade classifications for duty of dutiable raw sugar 
entered into consumption in the fiscal years 1876, 1877, 1878; de¬ 
clared value thereof, cost per pound, liquidated duties, and signifi¬ 
cant comparisons, wherein the modus ojperandi of evading duty on 
sugar of high grades by color-toning, false sampling, and under 
classification is made vividly evident: 

Grades of dutiable sugar entered into consumption: 


XIII. Sampled and classed not above 

Declared value 

Cost 

Liquidated 


7 D. S. 

above 10 D. S. 

per lb. 

duty received. 

1876 . 


$20,344,948 

3.80c. 

$11,654,445 

1877. 


37,501,481 

*4.94c. 

16,580,087 

1878. 

.860,287,182 lbs. 

41,516,497 

t4.82c. 

18,818,782 

Total.... 


99,362,926 

t4.61c. 

47,053,314 

XIV. Sampled and classed above 7 N. A. 

Declared value 

Cost 

Liquidated 


10 D. S. 

above 13 D. S. 

per lb. 

duty received. 

1876. 

..869,785,687 lbs. 

$36,593,778 

4.20c. 

$21,628,822 

1877. 

.604,317,151 lbs. 

29,748,890 

g4.92c. 

15,107,928 

1878. 

.618,019,876 lbs. 

33,232,883 

115.37c. 

15,450,497 

Total..., 

..2,092,122,714 

99,575,551 

1[4.75c. 

52,187,247 

XV. Sampled and classed above 10 N. A. 

Declared value 

Cost 

Liquidated 


13 D. S. 

above 13 D. S. 

per lb. 

duty received. 

1876. 

.150,107,868 lbs. 

$6,543,106 

4.36c. 

$4,092,846 

1877. 

. 88,462,3.36 lbs. 

4,371,003 

«=* ** 4.94c. 

2,488,003 

1878.. 

. 72,.316,574 lbs. 

4,110,502 

tt5.68c. 

2,033,904 

Total..., 

.310,886,778 

15,024,611 

tJ4.83c. 

8,614,753 

XVI. Sampled and classed above 13 N. 

Declared value ■ 

Cost 

Liquidated 


A. 16 D. S. 

equals 16 D. S. 

per lb. 

duty received. 

1876.. 

. 6,127,732 lbs. 

$318,830 

6.20c. 

$ 207 , 593 ’ 

1877. 

, . 4,536,195 lbs. 

218,943 

4.82c. 

155,931 

1878. 

. 1,474,118 lbs. 

73,831 

5.01c. 

50,673 

Total..., 


611,604 

5.03c. 

414,197 

XVII. Sampled and classed above 16 N. 

Declared value 

Cost 

Liquidated 


A. 20 D. S. 

equals No. 20 D. S. 

per lb. 

duty received. 

1876. 

. 1,011,458 lbs. 

$58,045 

5.73c. 

$40,107 

1877.. 

. 92,477 lbs. 

6,181 

6 .68c. 

3,756 

1878. 

. 561,068 lbs. 

35,491 

6.32c. 

22,793 

Total... 


99,717 

6.98c. 

66,656 

XVIII. Sampled and classed above No. 

Declared value 

Cost 

Liquidated 


20 D. S. 

above No. 20 D. S. 

per lb. 

duty received. 

1876. 

. 24,976 lbs. 

$2,003 

8 .02c. 

$1,248 

1877. 

. 32,840 lbs. 

2,590 

7.88c. 

1,642 

1878. 

. 216,294 lbs. 

16,866 

7.79c. 

10,815 

Total... 

. 174,110 

21,459 

7.82c. 

13,705 


Under the above official classification, apparently, the average rate 
per cent, ad valorem duty actually paid in the fiscal year ending June 
30, 1878, on each of the classifications for duty of imported sugar 
consumed in said year, liquidation of duty being complete, is as 
follows; but the true ad valorem rate can only be estimated, inas¬ 
much as it depends on honest classification, which has not recently 


* Testimony of importers and refiners, No. 7 sugar costs 3.25 cents. 

i From estimates of experts, No. 7 si^ar costs 3.50 cents per lb. 
Average estimate of experts, No. 7 D. S. sugar costs 3.375 cents. 
Testimony of importers and refiners, No. 10 costs 3.75 cents. 
From testimony of other experts, No. 10 costs 4.00 cents. 

1[ Average estimate of experts. No. 10 sugar costs 3.875. 

** Testimony of importers and refiners. No. 13 costs 4.00 cents, 
tt From estimates of other experts. No. 13 costs 4.50 cents. 

.\verage estimates of experts. No. 13 costs 4.25 cents. 





















































32 


obtained in levying duty on centrifugal and other high grades of 
imported sugar: 


XIX. 1878. Classsifications. 

Quantity con¬ 
sumed, lbs. 

Declared 

value. 

Duties 

liquidated. 

Per cent, 
ad val. 

All not above No. 7. 

860,287,172 

$41,516,497 

$18,818,782 

45.33 

Above 7 N. A., 10 D. S. 

618,019,876 

33,232,883 

15,450,497 

46.49 

Above 10 N. A., 13 D. S. 

72,316,574 

4,110,502 

2,033,904 

49.48 

Above 13 N. A.’ 16 D. S. 

1,474,118 

73,831 

50,673 

68.63 

Above 16 N. A., 20 D. S. 

561,068 

35,491 

22,793 

64.22 

All above 20 D. S. 

- 216,294 

16,866 

10,815 

64.12 

Total dutiable in 1878.........„. 

1,552,875,112 

78,986,070 

36,387,464 

46.00 


The evident purpose of the sugar tarifl* of 1870 was to levy a 
specific duty on sugar equivalent to an ad valorem duty of about 50 
per cent.; and the addition of 25 per cent, ad valorem levied upon 
said specific duty in 1875 would naturally increase the duty to 62.50 
per cent, on the actual cost or foreign market value of all sugar, up 
to No. 16 Dutch standard, that cost not less than 3J cents and up¬ 
wards per pound. Sugar costing less than 3J cents per pound in 
the foreign market would of course pay more than 62.50 per cent, 
ad valorem. 

Under an honest classification of imported sugars, the average ad 
valorem duty in 1878 would have shown about 64 per cent.; for 
instance, about 20 per cent, of all sugar now entered into consump¬ 
tion is not above No. 7 Dutch standard. In the fiscal year 1878 
there entered into consumption 1,552,875,112 pounds of dutiable 
sugar, 20 per cent, of which is 310,575,022 pounds, not above No. 
7; average cost, say, 3.50 cents per pound; amounts to $10,870,- 
125.77; duty at 2.1875 cents per pound would be $6,893,828.58, or 
63.41 per cent., instead of 45.33 per cent., as represented under the 
false classification for duty in 1878. 

The case stands as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1878 : Consumption, 1,552,875,112 pounds of dry sugar, valued in 
the foreign market at $78,986,070, or 5.086 cents per pound; paid 
a duty of $36,387,464, or only 2.34 cents per pound on an average 
grade equal to No. 8J Dutch standard, while the actual foreign cost 
and value of the sugar consumed, evidenced in the declared value 
and confirmed in the home market, clearly prove the quality and 
natural grades have been on the average between No. 13 and 16 
Dutch standard, individual trade experiences, theories, and tes¬ 
timony of interested sugar merchants to the contrary notwithstand- 

The above tabular classifications are from the ofiicial records, 
foreign values as declared included; the testimony in regard to 
foreign values of raw sugars was given before the sub-committee 
of the Ways and Means Committee in New York, September, 1878, 
at previous investigations, and since, by men of undoubted integ¬ 
rity, engaged in importing sugars from all sugar-producing coun¬ 
tries, and by refiners.^ The deductions and classifications of facts 
are my own, and are incontrovertible. 

It is now coolly purposed by the advocates of and petitioners for 
a uniform duty on sugar to No. 13 Dutch standard, in the face of 
















33 


these exposures of systemized frauds on the revenue, to carry on a 
still more gigantic system of frauds upon the people; in plain lan¬ 
guage, they propose to outrage and punish American consumers by 
depriving the people of the refined product of low grade raw sugars, 
the importation of which is to be virtually prohibited by a uniform 
duty on all grades of imported sugars to No. 13 Dutch standard; 
not only this, but such results would be calamitous to home indus¬ 
tries, revenue, and commerce, as I have elsewhere proved. 

Shall Congress succomb to the imperious demands of men who 
boldly declare before this committee, in substance, that they do not 
want to make the refined sugars required by the mass of consumers 
because there is less money in it than in high grades, or yield to 
uniform duty men, who admit discolorations and false classification 
of imported sugars to evade duty, and claim reward for such nefa¬ 
rious practices of power to rob the people and deplete the Treasury 
legally hereafter ? 

Has the time arrived when, for the nonsensical reason alone that 
it will be easier to collect the duty from sugar under a uniform 
tariff to No. 10 or 13 or 16 Dutch standard (a reason which at first 
sight seems plausible, but which analysis proves to be mistaken,) 
the interests of fifty millions of American consumers, producers, 
and manufacturers of sugar shall be tossed bodily into the keeping 
of those whose hands and high-grade sugars are discolored by fraud 
for greed of gain already ? 

There is no theory about these statements; they are classified 
facts and reliable evidence. The intent of a uniform duty on sugar 
to No. 13 Dutch standard, in color—without check or legal means 
of detecting frauds, or even with them—means evil, and that con¬ 
tinually, against the people and their industries and food necessities. 

Mr. Searles, apparently in defense of discoloration of high-grade 
sugars to evade duty, in his closing remarks on Saturday, January 
31, said in substance, that, having tampered (experimented) with 
low grade sugars the evening previous, after my practical illustra¬ 
tions of illicit high grade practices had been given before the com¬ 
mittee, he found that by heating the sugar over the fire—in other 
words, by semi-refining the low-grade sugar, and then grinding it— 
the color was raised somewhat. Mr. Searles overlooked the fact 
that, in order to raise the color of low-grade sugar even somewhat, 
he was compelled, before grinding them, to change their natural 
texture entirely by semi-refining; in other words, by heat and evap¬ 
oration. 

I distinctly explained and illustrated this to the committee on 
Thursday, and again on Friday, when grinding low-grade sugars 
on the one hand, and Demerara and Cuban colored centrifugals on 
the other, and when unfolding Cuban and Demerara method of dis¬ 
coloring centrifugals and vacuum-pan sugars to evade duty; and I 
repeat, it is impracticable and unprofitable to tamper with sugars 
of natural make and color below No. 10 Dutch standard, or in the 
case of muscovadoes and molasses sugars above No. 10, to evade 
duty, until the intrinsic grade and color of the sugar has first been 
raised and the crystallizahle strength brought above 90 or 91 per 
5 


34 


cent, in 100 parts of raw sugar material. Then discolorations are 
practised to evade duty, as explained and practically illustrated in 
actual view of the honorable Committee on Ways and Means by 
me, wherein it was proved that the discolored centrifugals from 
Cuba and Demerara required no heat or change of inherent prop¬ 
erties to develop No. 16 or No. 20 Dutch standard, actual in color, 
in a No. 7 Dutch standard, or No. 10 Dutch standard, ap'parent in 
color, made low in color by discolorants, while high in crystals to 
evade duty. 

Neither should it be forgotten that Demerara official records 
prove that her sugar producers and manufacturers have testified 
against themselves, declaring boldly, under oath, their use of dis- 
colorauts when making sugars for the Americam market of high 
crystallizable strength, but in color below 7 or 10, as the case may 
require. Premiums have even been offered in Demerara for the 
best samples of discolored sugars of highest test, for the American 
trade. 

Surely it cannot be that Congress will reward these self-convicted 
manipulators and their American allies, by enabling them to de¬ 
prive American consumers of the cheap and pure refined sugars 
they now obtain from low-grade raw-sugar material that would be 
prohibited under a uniform duty of No. 13 Dutch standard; which 
treachery against the nation is urged upon this committee and upon 
Congress, under the pretense that the Secretary can collect the 
revenue a trifle easier, and all such balderdash. 

Mr. Brown also submitted the following paper in response to 
questions put to him by various members of the committee. 

As to the effect of Hawaiian sugars on prices in San Francisco 9 

Answer. The effect has been merely to maintain prices on the 
Pacific coast at the highest point; in other words, not the slightest 
benefit to consumers has resulted from the importation of Hawaiian 
sugars into California duty free; on the contrary, the country loses 
the duty on said sugars and an equal amount in industry or labor 
expended in Hawaii in raising the grades or semi-refining her sugars 
for us, while Hawaiian free sugars cost or are sold for the same 
when landed in California as similar grades of dutiable sugars, plus 
duty, cost or are sold for when landed in Boston or New York. 

As to the American production of sugar for the last forty years ? 
In reply I present herewith the following tabular compilation, which 
exhibits the cane-sugar product in the United States during the last 
forty-three years and the market value thereof, compiled from the 
highest official authorities by myself: 


35 


Crop years. 

Total crops. 

Total value. 

1857-’58_ 

Pounds. 

307,700,000 

$17,900,000 

1858-’59_ 

414,800,000 

25,000,000 

1859-’60_ 

225,100,000 

18,200,000 

1860-’61_ 

263,200,000 

14,469,000 

1861-’62_ 

528,300,000 

25,100,100 

1862-’63_ 

96,000,000 

7.750,000 

1863-'64_ 

84,500,000 

13,800,000 

1864-’65_ 

10,800,000 

2,000,000 

1865-’66 

19,900,000 

2,847,000 

1866-’67_ .. 

42,900,000 

5,360,000 

1867-68_ 

41,400,000 

5,800,000 

1868-’69_ 

95,100,000 

11,610.000 

1869-’70_ 1 

99,500,000 

10,442,000 

1870-71_1 

168,900,000 

14,261,000 

1871-72_; 

146,900,000 

13,911,000 

1872-73_ 

125,300,000 

10,900,000 

1873-74_i 

103,200,000 

8,555,000 

1874-75_ 

134,500,000 

11,265,000 

1875-76_ 

165,450,000 

11,578,000 

1876-77_ 

194,960,000 

15,646,000 

1877-78_ 

149,469,200 

11,957,536 

1878-79_ 

245,319,150 

18,398,936 


Crop years. 


1835- ’36.__. 

1836- ’37___. 

1837- ’38-._. 

1838- ’39.__. 

1839- '40_._, 

1840- '41,__. 

1841- ’42.._. 

1842- ’43___ 

1843- ’44.__. 

1844- ’45„_. 

1845- ’46-__. 

1846- ’47.._, 

1847- ’48-__ 

1848- ’49„-, 

1849- '50„-. 

1850- ’51___. 

1851- ’52„_ 

1852- '53.__ 

1853- ’54.__ 

1854- '55___ 

1855- ’56___ 

1856- ’57_-_. 


Total crops. 


Pounds. 

30,000,000 

70,000,000 

65,000,000 

70,000,000 

115,000,000 

87,000,000 

90,000,000 

140,000,000 

100 , 000,000 

200,000,000 

186,600,000 

140,000,000 

240,000,000 

220,000,000 

269,800,000 

231,200,000 

257,100,000 

368,100,000 

495,200,000 

385,700,000 

254,600,000 

81,400,000 


Total value. 


12,700,000 

4,200,000 

5,063,000 

4,375,000 

5,750,000 

4,785,000 

3,600,000 

4,750,000 

6,000,000 

9,000,000 

10,266,000 

9,800,000 

9,600,000 

8,800,000 

13,396,000 

12,678,000 

11,827,000 

15,453,000 

15,726,000 

18,025,000 

16,200,000 

8,137,000 


JiroTE.—Although the above table, from 1850 to 1878, of pro¬ 
duction in pounds, varies somewhat from the table of Messrs. 
Champonier and Boucherou, in the “ Statistical Abstract of the 
United States,” it is considered on the w’hole the most reliable data 
extant on the subject; and it is believed that the differences apparent 
between the various authorities consist of different estimates of the 
number of pounds per hogshead ; Messrs. Champonier and Bouche¬ 
rou estimate an average of 1,150 pounds per hogshead ; other 
authorities estimate 1,200 pounds per hogshead; while the fact is, 
that hogsheads vary in weight from about 1,160 to 1,200 pounds; 
some even estimate 1,300 pounds to the hogshead; hence the above 
is approximately accurate; the value is computed by using the 
average prices current in each year.—H. A. Brown. 

As to the importations of sugar each year, its annual value, and 
the annual revenue therefrom ? 

In reply I present a tabular exhibit of imported sugars entered 
into consumption each year, for the fiscal years 1867 to 1879, inclu¬ 
sive, the annual value thereof, the duty received therefrom, and the 
rate per pound, in each fiscal year. 


























































36 


Foreign sugar entered into consumption. 


Years. 

Dutiable sugars. 

Valued. 

Duty paid. 

Rate lb. 

1SA7 

Pounds. 

936,786,240 

$38,300,320 

$28,500,220 

Cents. 

■ 3.04 

X868 ..••...A. 

997,298,.331 

1,007,625,757 

4.3,307,769 

30,359,4«J 

3.04 

1869. 

47,826,296 

30,045,235 

3.04 

1870. 

1,183,089,146 

59,021,588 

35,986,.347 

3.04 

1871. 

1,160,394,287 

58,382,938 

29,690,552 

2.54 


1,346,942,550 

73,318,299 

27,876,769 

2.07 

1873. 

1,-378,498,832 

74,993,073 

28,226,309 

2.05 

1874. 

1,511,456,915 

76,080,510 

30,492,526 

2.02 


1,575,893,948 

69,292,009 

33,380,643 

2.12 

18T a a a a a a a a aa a a aaaaaaaaa .aaaaaaaa aaa aaaaaa 

1,561,880,545 

1.455,387,854 

1,552,875,112 

63,860,713 

37,625,064 

34,337,350 

36,387,404 

2.41 

187^::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::^ 

71,849,089 

78,986,070 

2.36 

2.34 

.. 

1,598,461,986 

65,918,931 

37,294,197 

2.33 


HAWAII. 


Y ears. 

Free Sugars. 

Valued. 

Duty paid. 

Rate lb. 

1877 . 

Pounds. 

30,685,142 

30,368,328 

41,693,069 

$2,112,270 

2,274,430 

2,811,192 

Free. 


1878 . 

Free. 


1879 . 

Free. 






As to the qualities of sugars now imported from the Hawaiian 
Islands ? In reply, I present the following tabular exhibit of the 
different grades or qualities of sugars imported from the Hawaiian 
Islands, also the quantities and value thereof, for the fiscal years end¬ 
ing June 30, 1877, 1878, and 1879, under the reciprocity treaty 
admitting Hawaiian sugars duty free: 


Quality. 

1877 . 


Sugars not above No. 7 Dutch standard 

Above 7, not above No. 10. 

Above 10, not above No. 13. 

Above 13, not above No. 16. 

Above 16, not above No. 20. 

Above No. 20 Dutch standard, in all. 


1878. 


Sugars not above No. 7 Dutch standard. 

Above 7, not above No. 10. 

Above 10, not above No. 13.. 

Above 1.3, not above No. 16. 

Above 16, not above No. 20.. 

1879. 


Sugars not above No. 7 Dutch standard, 

Above 7, not above No. 10. 

Above 10, not above No. 13 . 

Above 13, not above No. 16. 

Above 16, not above No. 20. 


Quantity. 

Value. 

Pounds. 

None. 

None. 

3,980,804 

$230,155 

11,291,315 

714,490 

10,183,556 

737,525 

6,186,406 

426,302 

43,061 

3,798 

None. 

None. 

2,437,920 

161,922 

10,805,283 

757,734 

, 12,227,780 

963,549 

, 4,897,345 

391,2-24 

None. 

None. 

8,174,146 

501,850 

16,615,686 

1,099,164 

15,670,564 

1,118,117 

1,232,673 

92,061 


As to the different grades of sugar imported from Hawaiian 
Islands before the treaty ? 

In reply I present the following tabular exhibit, which substan¬ 
tially indicates the quality and quantity of Hawaiian sugars prior 
to the treaty. The actual grades of sugar imported from Hawaii 
in 1874, 1875, 1876 are not officially stated except on invoice 
entries, but are readily approximated % comparing market values 
with quantities imported in those years. 

























































37 


Sugars imported from Hawaii^ fiscal years 1868, and 1874, 1875, 1876. 

Quality. Quantity. Value. 


Pounds. 

Sugars not above No. 12 Dutch standard. 12,622,159 $579,756 

Above 12, not above No. 15. 5,591,842 375,247 

Above 15, not above No. 20. 27,061 1,895 

Above No. 20, in all... 80 11 

Average grade, 7 to 10 . 18,241,142 956,909 

1874— Nos. 7 to 10 D. S., average.T3,575,674 ' no"^ 

1875— Nos. 7 to 10 D. S., average. 17,888,000 938,676 

1876— Nos. 7 to 10 D. S., average. 20,978,374 1,051,987 


As to American capitalists engaged in the sugar business in the 
Hawaiian Islands? 

Answer. There are well-known American capitalists and exten¬ 
sive refiners of sugar in California who, in co-operation with 
Hawaiian producers of sugar, control the sugar trade of Hawaii, 
and through this control of free sugars also regulate prices of re¬ 
fined sugar to consumers on the Pacific coast; keeping them as 
high as possible without admitting refined sugars from the Atlantic 
States in quantities sufficient for successful competition against 
sugars refined in California. 

Henry A. Brown, 

Ex S'pecial Treasury Agents United States. 

Residence : Saxonville, Massachusetts. 






















t 



' 


. "if 



•.•' . ■ >.< V *'r ' • 

• v>-.^ ■ •,'VV.-^'^"' , '-/,t , ’ 

- •’.' . . v‘ • . VV ' - 




V* ^ '.V\' 


JTf^t • >*'*' • 








«','•• i»-‘^, -•'ji' 

I --‘...•t ?/;*’-,p 

i# 

.j* ’- 





^ Vi 


m 




* / '4 tv*** 


« i 


^y. 


I ■ ’V^* 

(■ ' ■ w;-‘f F» :" ■ 


« # 




.4 . w: .>— 

'•'% '•'■v-i*,^ 

, >^i/k • . • f, 'vH( 


i’'^' B. 


V »■» r' 4 
> V W • ' 

/• ■ ?' *. 


'. ■'ftSBIiLJJ#"- 


, j *,« 



► * j « 







1/ 


\-- 


A "'•' •V’l'' 


fe., ^ 





_r* 


;■ 



r*' 


' \ 








: I 





< ^ V 





• V* .« 




. .:-t 


%-jA^ I 

\‘!'' AV 




•... > 










’i'. ? 



/''!„ ■.T'^!'. mEa' ’> , ■ t:?'V'. iiinr.1! 


*t:v : 


- ± 



•' r*' ^ 

^ • r * I (kP7^&r' tffSfffiw • « * / ‘V 


' Vc* 

• \ TV-’ .•■ 

.: . -• > . I * • 

Si- 


y 

,.^4 


' r.w- ■ r"i! 

• '•J.-ri -- ^ ■ *-U 


• 6: 







;i 1 ■ / >-KV 












•. •' • 

\ I 



''f 


•■■ ' ‘ u.' 


4 






• f 





,V *^.'' 







^ . 





Kl';fV''‘- 







•r 


Vi ♦ 




►*-1 ' > c 


“1' 


► 4 _'4J ' A . 


•«. ' * 


far. 


B«-'’--i>'P 

j^ " 7 .-» ^ 

, '' w f 

" ' i'* '*UIMlfc.!LJ>Mi- ^ 


•-’ I'. 


■ 


' .f 




/V 


..'b BKi^H ' ’ , t » 

VVv ' 

» _ < .. 




/ J. 



•I.' '...V' 

.. -. .V.: 1 

#..■_, , •' * 

- ■ ji ■ y ■• ,i 

, - '«»•! 

r. J ’ 

9 , 

• • » 

‘ • ■ K*S^- 

i'/VV' 


ff''■'•, t 


‘ 'f * fr^'* 

4 S i ‘ 


j-T-j 








m 


j.. > 


V . 


uTt 







' »iv; 


' ‘ -:'V,^ .-> ^ , •■ ..W;'-' *% W,.', ^>'5 

^'^ > -y- Jm y 'd^. ^ *<■ ^ ^'y 


.-", _ .. ^V-J ■ ..iHi^l ‘^■' xtiC V ’ V*i ♦ — -■-(_, V .41^ .. .’.*,**/>*..y 


‘ivA^ 





. .<» 










i 

( 

1 


Ji 









LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 016 026 211 4 


..■•Vi 



•) >;!;v' v:h ■!■ v’r!' 


•Vt VI 





- vV 4V' *•'■./^•VV' 







































